When I sat down to write my thoughts about the trouble I was having with Pope Francis, I just couldn’t anticipate what would follow.
You see, this is a blog that very few people read. I have other outlets for more media-worthy stories that have larger audiences. But when I’m working something out and need to get it written down, I go here. I share it with family and friends, and I expect that — usually anyway — that’s about as much impact as it will make. It’s where the posts I can’t write anywhere else go to die. Well, usually.
So I wrote my little thing about the pope, and it struck a nerve. Tens of thousands of views later, I have now been interviewed by NBC News and The New York Times (the latter was also picked up by The Drudge Report) about my papal concerns. This is understandable, if a bit surprising for me. The understandable part is that articulate opposition always creates just the right touch of conflict in a story, and I can provide that to a certain extent, even though there are others far smarter, more noteworthy, and more articulate than I out there doing the same. The surprising part is that I’m really nobody worth bothering about, much as I would like sometimes to believe otherwise.
I am a not-very-accomplished sometimes writer who has happened to make a hobby out of studying theology over the last 20 years or so. I have enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough to consider myself an accomplished Catholic apologist of any stripe, my college degree in Theology notwithstanding. 2,000 years of religious practice, tradition, thought, and belief is hardly something a young man can cram into four years of a second major. I can hold my own in an argument, but these days, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into depth on this stuff. It gets pretty heady, and the investment into research and response to a protracted debate over the particulars can drag on for days.
You see, I have a wife, and I would like to keep her. She was very patient with me in the early days of our marriage as I played Catholic Vigilante of Teh Internets, but as time went on and our family grew, my little pursuit became an obstacle to doing my main job: providing for the family we had built together and helping to educate and care for them and the home they live in. Now that we own a business as well, which always needs a thousand things done although there’s never enough opportunities to do them, I have to set priorities. This is why you’ll note the rather long periods of time between posts in this space.
So the choice I’m making is this: I cannot substantively engage in the sort of point-by-point debates I used to. This means that I am, I fear, selling those commenters who have taken the time to ask thoughtful questions short. These commenters, no matter how much fondness (or enmity) I towards whom I may feel are simply not as precious as my small children or as beautiful (or dangerous) as my lovely wife. They come first. But I will try, however briefly and inadequately, to set some things straight.
So, back to the subject at hand.
I’d like to address a few points that have been brought up:
- I am coming at these issues from the perspective of a faithful Catholic who understands and obeys Church teaching. (I say perspective, because although I strive, like all sinners, I sometimes fall very short of this ideal.) I have absolutely no time or interest in entertaining arguments or trolling about how the Church hates gays or I hate gays (or women, or puppies, or poor Lithuanians, or whatever). I don’t hate class of people, and neither does the Church. But love — real love — means challenging people who are in sin. Whether that’s me because I’m out committing adultery or robbing banks or you because you’re living a homosexual lifestyle, the Church teaches that these things are sinful, and thus recommends that you stop doing these things if you want to get to heaven. That’s about as far as I’m going to take this one. Go find someone else to argue with about the Church hating gays.
- I have been asked “who are you to judge the pope?” Who am I? Nobody, really. And I’m not judging him. I’m saying that the things he is saying on issues such as evangelization, liturgy, devotional practices, freedom of conscience, abortion, homosexuality, and contraception have formed an impression that is generally contrary to what the Church has traditionally taught. Since the pope can’t change Church teaching, that’s problematic.
- I have been attempting to explain what the doctrine of papal infallibility covers, and what it doesn’t. It DOES NOT cover every word that the pope says, every opinion, every interview. Not by a long shot. In fact papal infallibility is an incredibly limited faculty and rarely used as compared to magisterial infallibility, which is much more common. To quote Blessed John Cardinal Henry Newman on the topic:
“If the Pope prescribed lying or revenge, his command would simply go for nothing, as if he had not issued it, because he has no power over the Moral Law. If he forbade his flock to eat any but vegetable food, or to dress in a particular fashion (questions of decency and modesty not coming into the question), he would also be going beyond the province of faith, because such a rule does not relate to a matter in itself good or bad.
[…]
However, there are other conditions besides this, necessary for the exercise of Papal infallibility, in moral subjects:—for instance, his definition must relate to things necessary for salvation. No one would so speak of lotteries, nor of a particular dress, nor of a particular kind of food;—such precepts, then, did he make them, would be simply external to the range of his prerogative.”
- One thing that seems to be lost in the current understanding of papal infallibility is that a pope can’t just up and do a 180 on Church doctrine. He doesn’t have the power to overturn any doctrinal or dogmatic teaching that came before him. He is a custodian of truth, not the creator of it. So I’m not claiming that he IS changing it. I’m claiming that he’s giving the IMPRESSION that he’s changing it, which can have a similar effect on the way people live if left uncorrected.
- Finally: the Church is bigger than any single pope. That’s the takeaway I really want people to have. He’s just one guy with a limited amount of power to do the things he has on his agenda. This is something I don’t think I ever adequately understood in the past, but we all grow and evolve in our way of looking at things if we’re being honest and paying attention. So yes, while Catholics have traditionally pointed to the pope when he was the only one speaking the truth, we (many of us, anyway) fell under the impression that his words had more power and carried more weight than they really did. There are non-negotiables, and there are personal opinions of a particular pope. Being able to make the distinction between the two is essential to understanding any particular papacy.
The bottom line is that my issues and concerns all come from an understanding of what the Church *is* and how the nature of the institution is to be unchanging. When people start going around trying to change it, it becomes something else. Something other than Catholicism. And if that’s the case then why not just start a new religion or join a different one.
I have more thoughts, of course, but they’ll have to wait. I’m getting pretty tired of talking about this, so maybe they’ll wait for a long time. Being a critic of anything tends to draw negativity, and I don’t like getting mired in that for too long. It’s draining.
ALSO: Though it’s not how I like to do business, I will not have time to police the comment box — here or on the original post — though I will probably do a drive by here and there if necessary. Please be civil, or I will hit you with the magic death ray of banification.
UPDATE: I should have included links to two of the more outstanding Church documents that point to problems in this papacy. The first is Pascendi Dominici Gregis , by Pope St. Pius X. The first few sentences are true now more than ever, and the later warnings against modernism that will come through the guise of clergy and theologians are chilling. The opening statement:
One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”1 “vain talkers and seducers,”2 “erring and driving into error.”3 It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.
That obligation of “guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of faith” is one I don’t see Pope Francis taking very seriously at all, at least in terms of the never-ending stream of misinterpretations of Catholic teaching or the direction of the Church that seem to follow in his wake.
The second document, and one which carries significant doctrinal weight, is Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. A sometimes challenging read when you have to remember that the positive statements in the document are the very same that are being condemned, not supported, it nonetheless addresses issues such as the question of atheists and those of other faiths not needing to convert to attain heaven. Among the condemned propositions:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
Both of these documents offer much value to this discussion, but I’ll leave them to you to read on your own rather than expound upon them here.
I find that you are profound in echoing the thoughts of many, I’m sure. You know that you are not the only one who thinks as you do, and say so. Interesting enough, I’ve seen Bishops of late, going backwards to bring back lost sacred music, Vespers, Latin, relics, proper acts of faith, and dignity, etc. I find it refreshing. But also find concern of a different manner when thinking of how Pope Francis expresses himself and what he is certainly aspiring to. It would do us all to pray fopr him and the Church as often as we can.
In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Thanks, Peter.
Aw. Well, that gets me right there. I certainly understand the need to put your family life first, and I don’t consider that ducking any question. It sounds as if you legitimately haven’t the time to get so far into it.
I’ll try to keep it brief: the problems I have with these arguments are 1) the reliance on “tradition.” Traditional teachings and practice used to dictate that the head of my mother’s church (that is, the king or queen of England) would burn Catholics at the stake, and sometimes chop them into four bits and send them to the four corners of England. I’m glad that those traditions were dispensed with. Some of today’s traditions aren’t so cruel, but they do lead to people leaving the church, or killing themselves.
2) Even if a pope “can’t up and do a 180,” or if individual popes aren’t supposed to go rogue, what we’re talking about is still Some Guys in Robes Said, which is denied by Some Other Guy in a Robe Says. The church councils that decided which doctrine was absolute were, in the end, just a bunch of humans taking stuff that made them comfortable (or rich, or powerful, or etc.) and deciding “it’s the law.”
2 cents. Anyway, this half-Jewish, half-Anglican, rather irreligious guy will still pray for you to have a beautiful, peaceful, happy, and harmonious life with your wife and family. Thanks for sharing the soapbox with the rest of us.
Thanks, Andrew. This sort of discussion easily turns into an addiction for me. I love sparring, but it takes a toll on other, more important things.
1) I can’t speak to the Church of England, but I will say that the reliance on Tradition (note that I’m using a capital ‘T’, which means established traditions rooted in doctrine, not the colloquial sort of practice that rises up over time organically) in the Catholic Church is paramount. There is nothing to be found within the deposit of Tradition in Catholicism which is so abusive. There are some hard truths, to be sure, but any religion worth a damn is going to have those.
2) While your perspective on the authority that exists within the Catholic Church is understandable from a rational, empiricist perspective, you have to understand that for Catholics, there is a significant faith component here. “Peter (Cephas) thou art rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The prescription of binding and loosing of sins and rules on earth and in heaven, the commandment to forgive sins, all these keys to understanding the divine imperative of authority given to the shepherds of the Church and their successors and the implicit promise of divine guidance are critical here.
From an empricist standpoint, the best evidence of the Church’s protection from error comes in understanding the history of her teachings. Tracing these teachings through 2,000 years of popes, bishops, priests, and councils – even while weathering heresy, persecution, and schism – one finds that while the Catholic Church’s doctrines develop new facets over time, they are remarkably consistent. Certainly more than any other earthly institution. Heck, less than 300 years later nobody can agree what the Constitution means anymore and we still have the damn thing. The Church’s consistency is a rare feat, and one worth considering. I think it’s more than robes vs robes, or faction vs faction.
Thanks for your kind words and your prayers. Both are greatly appreciated.
You bet, my friend. Thanks for explaining your point of view.
“This sort of discussion easily turns into an addiction for me.”
Tell me about it 😀
Hello Steve,
I am glad to see you back and posting. The good thing about a blog with discussion is that it brings things out into the light instead of allowing them to hide in the dark.
That being said, I wish blessings to you and your family.
For anyone who is interested in the Catholic Church and especially its teachings, I really like the site http://www.catholicbible101.com
It gives some very good information and is (to me) a very positive and easy to follow source of information on the Catholic faith. I am in no way affiliated with this site. I believe that Catholics and anyone searching for the living God will experience a blessing through this site.
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
Once we realize that the truth is not just an arbitrary set of facts, but that the truth is actually a person – Jesus Christ – then, our lives can truly be transformed. Come Holy Spirit!
http://www.catholicbible101.com
Thanks, Tim.
Steve, do you think Pope Francis is the “destroyer” pope that St. Francis of Assisi prophesied would come? I’m asking seriously.
Joseph,
I don’t claim to know that, but the prophecy certainly is ominous. I think the kicker is the thing about a pope who is not canonically elected (which would, if I understand correctly, automatically make him an anti-pope, would it not?)
I’ve not heard anything about canonical troubles with this election, and I’m certainly not yet ready to say that he’s intentionally destroying anything, though I do sometimes wonder.
I’m still not understanding how Pope Francis messed up in your minds when it’s clear that even atheists are suddenly considering the Catholic Church relevant. He’s brought the best PR at a most needed time when the priest scandals are abating.
He is savvy, he understands his place in this time (he’s a Jesuit for heaven’s sake!). His example, of extreme humility in a world that is stuffed with narcissists and blowhards, is IMO more effective at bringing people to the Church than any proselytizing. it’s an amazing position to take right now with people screeching about who is holier or who is sinning more by doing what etc which makes most just turn away from the extremism & ugliness.
We’re missing the spirit of the Holy Spirit moving in Francis, and He profoundly appears to be so moving. The entire world’s reaction to Francis’ statements has been overwhelmingly positive
. He has always been a very holy and prayerful man. His head has not been turned by his election, and he’s extremely intelligent—but in a different way than most of the popes we’ve had (and I go back to Pius XIX).
Mercy and love, not The Law—–I’m concerned that the Curia is going to pull him out before he can further this example he is giving, a most astute and timely example we desperately need.
I appreciate that you answered many people personally and how time-consuming that is.
But I’m not understanding why you give no room for the Holy Spirit to work through Pope Francis and immediately go on the attack. He’s talking about emphasis, and just reading some of the comments on your previous post (where posters quickly started breaking down into pro/con on abortion, gays) when there Are much bigger problems we have in this world Right Now. We shouldn’t be dividing ourselves let alone screaming at each other re who’s right— think of Jesus in the middle of that screaming and the example He gave us in living with one another, sinners all.
I don’t expect or require a reply. Just please consider that God may be working in mysterious ways, ways we haven’t seen before, and leave some room for God to surprise. We are seeing ‘as through a glass darkly’…. In both Testaments God has not allowed man to think he knows more than Him.
I know you and I have crossed swords in your more active days online. I appreciate your struggles, though, as you might guess, I have very few with the current pope.
The only comment I have is that I think you’ve gone into texts that are deeply derivative of the Gospel. Not that there’s anything necessarily false in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. But it doesn’t seem terribly relevant to your and my vocations as husbands and fathers. I’d rather reflect on Psalm 128. Or Tobit 8. Or the Passion.
As for the current situation for Catholic conservatives, there’s always Luke 15:28-32. Though that’s almost become a cliché.
Be at peace, brother.
My problem Steve is the timing of Pope Francis’ arrival.
It comes just at a time when I honestly thought the Church was starting to undo some of the harm that has been done in the last 50 years. I thought Pope Benedict was trying to restore reverence to the liturgy and discipline in moral areas.
Then along came Francis!
There have been desperate efforts by some traditionally minded Catholics to explain away Pope Francis’ comments. But that is the whole point! A pope should not be saying things that can be so easily misunderstood. We should not need a team of explainers trying to undo the damage every time he opens his mouth.
When a pope is as popular as he is with the secular, Catholic hating media – watch out! When a pope receives a commendation from the leading women’s pro abortion group -, watch out! When a pope is viewed favourably by pro homosexual groups – watch out!
I can only pray that the Holy Spirit, Guardian of the Papal office, will guide this man into more careful statements.
“When a pope is as popular as he is with the secular, Catholic hating media – watch out! When a pope receives a commendation from the leading women’s pro abortion group -, watch out! When a pope is viewed favourably by pro homosexual groups – watch out!”
When he starts getting dinner invitations from tax collectors … When he gets anointed by women of questionable reputation …
Perhaps one of the conservative problems is that some don’t recognize the Gospel when they see it. Peter tried to tamp down Jesus’s language, too. Remember the rebuke that netted?
Honestly: I don’t think some Catholics are looking deeply enough. But that’s always been the problem, hasn’t it?
Todd, I would ask to look at WHY these particular groups are so favourable towards Pope Francis. He has said things that appear to endorse their causes.
Our Blessed Lord met with with tax collectors and sinners – but look at what He said to them. Nothing but the undiluted truth of the Faith.
The fallen woman who anointed Him is a perfect case in point. He welcomed her, he accepted her when others wouldn’t because she was truly repentant. She wept with tears for her sin and wept with more tears at the forgiveness received from Jesus.
Such is NOT the case with the groups I have referred to and Pope Francis. He welcomes them with no call to repent, they welcome him reveling in their sin.
Paul, that seems so hypocritical, though. The Pope doesn’t call on anyone to repent of breaking Leviticus 20:18 (which not only commands married couples not to sleep together when the woman is menstruating, but also commands the community to cut off ties with such a couple). Where is the weeping and begging for forgiveness for that?
I can’t tell you how often I’ve read of Catholics or Christians castigating one another for being gay, struggling to purge thoughts of gay sex from their minds, lecturing one another, picketing gay soldiers’ funerals, etc., etc., etc. I have NEVER read a SINGLE account by even one Christian speaking of struggling with Leviticus 20:18, or lecturing another person about breaking it. Nor, of course, do politicians go around trying to make laws to ban sex between men and their menstruating wives.
This suggests beyond any but a HUGE stretch of an argument that the reason why Catholics focus on attacking gay sex, to the exclusion of very nearly ANYTHING else (which is precisely what Pope Francis is calling you out for), has nothing to do with what God wants or what Christ wants or are uncomfortable with. Gay sex is what YOU folks are uncomfortable with, that’s all.
(Wow, that’s a lot of CAPS I just WROTE. Sorry about that.)
Please read the Bible more carefully. Its condemnation of homosexual behaviour is absolute and irrefutable.
God created man and woman and the sexual relationship between them is absolutely to be the basis of family life.
This is why Scriptures blast homosexuality as an abomination. It is a sterile, un-lifegiving sexual act, involving anal penetration, clearly against God’s physical creation of man and woman, totally contrary to nature and to God’s law.
I will state again that Our Lord absolutely upheld the Commandments and condemned those who would try to weaken or disobey them.
True love cares what happens to people and will not condone acts that, in the long run, cause great harm to the person, both physically and spiritually.
Thank God for your wisdom and discernment, Paul. God bless you. We need more people like you, helping in a charitable way those who are so much in need to know the Truth!
Olga, do YOU have an answer to why no Catholic ever says one word about Leviticus 20:18, and why many of you break that law all you want, without seeing the mote in your own eye?
Can one of you people be honest about that?
Gay sex doesn’t bother God, or Jesus–it bothers YOU. If you were worried in any way about what God wants, you’d have answered my question about why you ignore Leviticus 20:18 (among MANY other laws which I believe are as obsolete as the biblical dietary laws you ignore).
Jesus wasn’t the Prince of Dishonesty.
That’s wild–you just completely ignored and pretended not to see ALL the rest of the post that I wrote. What–again–about the fact that you, and ALL the Catholic community, are completely mute about Leviticus 20:18?
You weren’t even honest enough to answer that in any way. A man and wife sleeping together while the wife is menstruating is equally banned by the bible, and Jesus never revoked that ban (unless you read his words, as I do, as revoking the ban on gay sex as well). You have no answer to why every Catholic is silent on Leviticus 20:18.
Your eyes ignore that truth, then. People who ignore the truth are hardly walking in the path of Jesus. I’ll pray for you indeed.
I did not refer to this prohibition because there are many Levitical laws that are guides for us but are not referred to in the New Testament. A man having sex with his wife during her period is not of the same category as homosexual sex and the proof of that is the fact that Scripture hardly mentions it but does frequently condemn homosexual sex.
Perhaps we should be observing the ban on sex during menstruation, in fact I know many people do.
By all mean disagree with me, but please don’t use the highly patronising “I’ll pray for you” line, as a way of showing my views are so far gone that only your prayer will save me!
I don’t know, friend. When not ONE person steps up and says “actually, Andrew, you know what? There IS no real public conversation about that, and I DON’T know why,” that means that all this blather about “the truth of Christ” goes exactly as far as you feel comfortable with. Unfortunately, Jesus’s truths don’t exist to make you comfortable. Yes, I said “I’ll pray for you” in disgust, I admit it. Not one of you people is ever truthful. You evade any truth that your childhood sunday school teacher didn’t allow you to believe.
And it was Paul, never Jesus, who inveighed in the NT about gays. As Peter was a man who was wrong, so could Paul be.
Does the Old Testament not count, then, even the laws that Jesus never explicitly repealed? So it’s okay that the whole Catholic community completely ignores those questions?
I mean, come ON, already–this isn’t about “because the bible says it” when you ignore REAMS (no pun intended) of biblical prohibitions that were never repealed. It’s about “gay people give beet-red conservatives the creeps and they don’t like people stepping out of line.” This is your egos talking, and you’re claiming it’s Jesus talking.
Andrew isn’t disputing that. He’s pointing out other condemnations that are absolute and irrefutable in the Bible, but which we (and you) conveniently ignore.
So falling back on “it’s condemned in the Old Testament” is meaningless, because, as he pointed it, it’s one of MANY things condemned there, while many of the others you choose to ignore. It’s your choice to emphasize that.
Pope Francis has put the emphasis on what Jesus Himself emphasized, in both His words and deeds. Jesus was obsessive about helping the weaker, the poorer, being against greed, while being fairly silent on condemning people for sexual morality, or lack thereof. The gospels came a bit after Christ, so we know what was considered important to the early founders and immediate followers of Christ in the Catholic church.
Francis hewing more to the examples of Christ rather is what attracts to many, because that’s what the pope is SUPPOSED to be about.
It’s kind of funny to watch people who told those unhappy with past emphasis of other popes, especially Benedict that you don’t get to be a cafeteria Catholic now behaving as cafeteria Catholics. If the pope brings the church into closer alignment with the life and teachings of Jesus, that’s not “undermining” the church, as Steve terms it. It’s saving it.
Thank you, AndyM. Well said. I mean, I have to say: Jesus came saying “Love one another,” and “If you Love me, feed my sheep.” He came in a time when the community was being strangled by strict adherence to cruel laws, such as the one stating (Deuteronomy 22:22) that adulterous men and women MUST be put to death. Jesus did not follow that law; the word was “MUST” be put to death. Jesus said that he came not to do away with the old law, but to fulfill it, but facts are facts: there was no Get Out of Jail Free card in Deuteronomy regarding “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”–Deuteronomy says “MUST,” without any caveats. Jesus broke that law.
If Jesus broke that law, and also the dietary laws (“not by what goeth into the mouth of a man, but by what cometh out; by this he is defiled”), it is so screamingly obvious that His purpose was to do away with blind, unthinking adherence to the letter of scriptural law, especially if that law is too strict and cruel, that I hardly think it needs saying.
Paul, are you seriously making the case, with a straight face, that Jesus’s point was simply to substitute a NEW unthinking obedience to OTHER cruel, scriptural laws, just different ones?
Uh–I just don’t believe that. That seems utterly ridiculous. If that were true, then why wouldn’t he do as Deuteronomy 22:22 commanded, or let the people do it without comment? What was his point, but to say that the law was cruel and wrong, though it was scripture?
Laws against gay sex are the same way.
Catholicism has a lot more to say about the struggle involved with deviant or perverse sexual relations or about natural tendencies which are permitted to become occasions of sin. However, the sin of homosexuality is one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance. And it’s mentioned quite a few times in Leviticus as well…
The problem is that there’s simply been too many Lucys claiming to speak for what God thinks is “deviant or perverse” and then pulling the football away. First it was Leviticus, in which 20:18 forbade sex between a man and his menstruating wife. I challenged poster Paul, here, to find me ANY examples of people talking and worrying about THAT any more; he claimed there were, but couldn’t produce any, and merely posed it as a nice-to-have, but less important now, because it’s not in the New Testament. Yet Steve even disagreed with him that Catholics care at ALL about that, saying on the contrary that “no one cares” about discussing Leviticus 20:18 (which was, er, precisely my point, but anyway–anyone find a single blog anywhere discussing it yet?). So… God DOESN’T care all that much about the sex laws in Leviticus anymore? OK.
Later it was blue laws, and people being told that only the missionary position was acceptable to God. Today? Oh, not so much; God’s opinion of what’s “deviant or perverse” apparently changed again. OK then.
Laws against heterosexual sodomy, oh my! Well! We’ve had leading lights of various churches, including yours and my mother’s Anglican church, claiming just the same horrible things were true of a man and wife performing oral or anal sex with each other. Oh, but those laws went down without a peep. We only heard much about the demise of Texas’s law against heterosexual sodomy because they left in the provision against gay sodomy, which led to Lawrence v. Texas. Heterosexual sodomy, though, too, is not quite as bad anymore, apparently. No one on blogs like these thunders at Pope Francis for being soft on that, and very few care to propose outlawing heterosexual sodomy.
Masturbation? Heavens to betsy, that’s also against God’s will, it’s deviant, it’ll lead to hair on your palms! Is that still deviant and against God’s will?
So I’m sorry, we really can’t take anyone’s claims that they know what God finds “deviant” anymore. “No, no fooling though, this time! God is REALLY, REALLY mad when two lesbians have sex! Seriously, you guys! You guys?”
Oh, yeah–SURE He is. I mean, I’m sorry, but what kind of sex will you announce that God is mad at next, and then say “just kidding”?
The Catholic Church cannot change it’s magisterial teaching on marital sexual relations or on the behaviour of those who’ve taken vows of celibacy or of unmarried people, without deviating from received doctrine and Tradition/Deposit of Faith. Any deviation from the received doctrine is a path away from Catholicism and into heterodoxy or heresy.
The spilling of seed (no matter how it is accomplished) is a sin against Divine (and natural) law. If seed is spilled in an attempt to either satisfy singularly lustful desires and/or with the intent to avoid the possibility of its productive or regenerative capacity, is a sin. Catholic teaching cannot change. That is Catholicism. If anyone preaches/teaches something different, he does not preach Catholicism.
but… our seed was DESIGNED to be “spilled.” Nocturnal emissions (most often accompanied by lustful dreams) were designed to do exactly that. You’re speaking against your own Creator.
I’m less concerned about what other people think. What happens in a private conversation is none of my business. Nor do I expect the secular or the Catholic or the pajama media to tell all.
Jesus also met with Nicodemus, and there was no middle-of-the-night conversion or commitment to follow in John 3.
Or perhaps, for the conspiracy theorists around, we can say all these Catholic-hating groups are intentionally driving a wedge into the faith by saying nice things about the pope.
Again, people aren’t looking deeply enough. When believer don’t understand something, do they think they’re right and the pope is wrong, all of a sudden?
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I see a real error in the way that people are judging Pope Francis.
Our first responsibility is to use the guidance of Ephesians 6:12-18. Too many people are seeing something that looks bad to them and jumping to conclusions. We must remember that we who are in Christ must act from love, NOT from fear. Many of the educated and knowledgeable experts of the law in the day of Jesus were saying that “he had a demon” because he ate with tax collectors and sinners. Well, was this true? Now I see many of my brother and sisters in Christ jumping to the same conclusions about Pope Francis.
1. These things must be spiritually discerned, not with human reason or wisdom. Please spend much, much more time in prayer before you react with these condemnations of the pope, lest you find yourself opposing God Himself.
2. Just because we keep the laws of God does not allow us to judge others, judgment is God’s business. I think He will be able to handle it without our help:-)
3. People who are hurting physically, spiritually, and emotionally are flocking to this new pope because they see his compassion.
4. The pope is asking people for their opinions on where the church should go because he is acting out of love, rather than fear. He knows the love of Christ and he is not full of fear that opening a dialogue with the hurting and even those many of us find “offensive” will result in a dissolution or dilution of the truth. Pope Francis knows that the truth is not just a set of facts – it is a person! – Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Nothing that anyone can say or do will change the truth or who the truth is.
5. Instead of writing an inflammatory comment or a comment on the pending doom of the world, go out and preach the gospel by acts of charity, love, almsgiving, and kindness.
6. Forgive me for writing the obvious and if I have not been as humble as I should. I am only trying to remind us of what the essence of the gospel is.
Peace in Christ!
The problem is that you–and the otherwise solid article–are missing a big chunk of why “conservatives” are reacting so.
Namely, the pope’s steady jabs at traditional spirituality, starting with the remarkably tone deaf reception of the rosary bouquet from the well-meaning Catholics happy to meet the new pope. His undeniable pastoral gifts–unfortunately–do not embrace all Catholics. I hope he will grow in office, and pray this happens.
What he seems to be jabbing at is a skin-deep spirituality, one that does not grow, that does not challenge itself, and does not look to mercy.
Again, who is more likely to be in need of growth? A person who has been in religious life for a half-century as a practitioner of a very disciplined discernment, or the people who want to give him marching orders?
Why do some Catholics focus so much on their own admitted confusion? Why not just get out and do something?
Because just getting out and doing something is confusing activity with achievement.
That you and others keep addressing our concerns as confusion comes across as condescending. As if the only reason we could possibly have misgivings is because there is something we don’t understand.
We understand all too well the effect this is having, and that’s what we object to.
Steve, I’m not suggesting a substitution–only a possible addition. Another suggestion is to open up dialogue with people do aren’t bothered by the Holy Father, if anything to avoid the usual internet echo chamber.
“Confusion” is your term–not mine. If you have a better one, I’m happy to use it.
The effect I see is that many Catholics are excited about their faith, that some conservatives are reexamining their priorities, and that seekers and non-believers are more attracted to Catholicism. I’m pleased church attendance is up in Italy. I see more excitement from students I serve, most of whom are a far sight from being liberals.
I think Pope Francis is the right man for the right time.
Hello Dale,
There are so many articles and great writers on what spirituality, or as we could more accurately say “the spiritual life” is, that it is hard to even begin a discussion on this. I would simply start with the words of Thomas Merton.
“The spiritual life is first of all a life. It is not merely something to be known and studied, it is to be lived.”
What we as conservative Catholics must still learn is the joy of being rejected. Remember the litany of humility prayer of Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/b005rp.htm
I share your pain because over the past 4 years I have experienced many of the things in that prayer. May we all learn this lesson well.
When I thought I had lost everything, I asked God about it. He said, “You still have me.” This is a priceless lesson and one I am still learning.
Dale, keep the faith, grow in love, persevere in hardships, and rejoice when you suffer rejection for the sake of the kingdom.
Whenever we experience tough times, the question is not why? The question is “Where is this leading me?” May we always respond in love.
Peace be with you,
Tim
Great articles Steve, in particular the first one. Thank you so much. If only people would be willing to listen with ears that can hear, it would be much easier for them to at least try to reflect for one second on what Pope Francis has been saying since the very beginning of his pontificate.That’s why I feel like I need to question many of the extremely confusing statements coming out of his own mouth. It is our duty to pray and ask the Lord for wisdom and courage to withstand the white martyrdom that awaits the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I know in my heart that the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, meaning Us, is being taken to Mount Calvary. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us and on the whole world; Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
That’s an interpretation. And he knew that was true about the “Pelagian” rosary bouquet folks…how? By simple dint of rosary counting?
I’m sure they didn’t feel kicked in the nuts or anything after reading that he’d said that about them. Again, his wide embrace comes with the occasional flying elbow, but apparently we’re not supposed to notice that. Much less mention it.
Those two were supposed to be up there under Todd’s response, but–wonky formatting.
Is the “reply” feature not working?
“Another suggestion is to open up dialogue with people do aren’t bothered by the Holy Father, if anything to avoid the usual internet echo chamber.”
All too often, his supporters, too, have something of an echo chamber repetitiveness about them. There’s only so much “older brother!” “Pharisee!” “You just want a pure church!” “He’s just like Jesus!” rhetoric one can reasonably be expected to absorb. Frankly, a lot of it has a personality cult feel to it, which makes it even more unpleasant.
Dale, you have known me long enough to realize I’m far from comfortable in any echo chamber of my own making. Why else would I bother with you conservatives as much as I do?
Personality cults are the making of fanboys and girls. Some Catholic bloggers have cultivated them, more or less. And people are more than willing to lemming up to some guru with charisma. It’s happened with the last two popes. This one seems no different. You and I know the pudding-proof is who aligns with Jesus Christ. We don’t need anyone to tell us that.
The point is to foster unity among believers. This seems to be more or less an opportunity to do that and decline taking our marching orders from either our gurus or any of the lemmings that nip at our heels.
Not for me, at least not for a second “sub-comment,” so to speak.
No, Todd, I don’t think you’re subject to the personality cult label, nor do I think you are pushing any such thing. But it is there, and I’ve felt the “love” from it, in no uncertain terms.
Frankly (no pun intended), I’m glad the Pope is drawing people back to Mass in Italy. I’ve heard similar reports about confession lines in South America. All to the good–no, great. Whatever I’ve went through will be as nothing compared to people returning, or turning, to genuine faith. That will be a great and unimpeachable good. Full stop.
The bottom line is that he doesn’t need my approbation. No Pope ever has. The fact I haven’t warmed to him–and, honestly, may never do so–is irrelevant.
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.
We’re talking about the fruit of JP2 and B16, surely. Good and intelligent Catholics: CDF on LCWR, bishops on theologians, bishops and colleges, bishops covering up sex crimes and parents. You think this started with Pope Francis? You can’t be serious.
And if you want to just look at conservatives, remember the fur flying over Fr Corapi, Mr Voris, Medjugorje, and a few other internet heroes of the past decade. The savagery has been with us since Al Gore.
What you can say about Pope Francis is that it hasn’t ended on his watch.
Er, no, Todd–as you may recall, I have a blog tag that abbreviates–Ironically–“one big happy church.” It’s attached to a couple hundred posts. I am aware of ecclesial infighting, and its prevalence.
What I am referring to is the new phenomenon of my friends savagely beating the shit out of each other over their reactions to this pontificate. This is new.
No it’s not. Maybe before March your friends were all a tight-knit group. But I read a lot of people beating each other up about Michael Voris, the new one true savior/jack of obedience, or Fr Corapi. Go to Mark Shea’s combox for culturewar allies biting and tearing each other to shreds.
I have a lot of friends on the so-called Right. Sometimes they got their start beating me up online. Sometimes we got to know each other as friends from the beginning and never made it to the biting and tearing stage.
When the only tool in your friends’ kits are hammers and they’ve pounded other sisters and brothers into ignoring them, naturally they’re going to turn on each other. Isn’t that basic Galatians 5?
We need to stop playing this game where we pretend that the Church is manifesting anything resembling the unity that is one of its hallmarks.
Pope Benedict’s mantra that there was no hermeneutic of rupture was wishful thinking. Perhaps it was even regret, because he saw his own role in bringing about a revolt in the Church as a young man, and recognizing that it sent us off in a very unfortunate direction.
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. There are a group of people trying to hold on to their papistry as the center point in all these storms, even if it means engaging in substantial mental gymnastics to do so.
Everyone else, it seems, is simply beginning to understand that without addressing the core issues, each pope is merely another pawn in an ideological war between Catholics that will never end. At least not until the Church returns to what is iron-clad, bedrock belief, and begins anew to embark into the present, and ultimately, the future.
So what happens when you have a house divided that has been promised by God it cannot fall?
This.
I’m a skeptic, Steve, on the notion of exceptionalism. This was the greatest generation, this was the worst, this was the best of times, etc.. Every age has its own challenges. Individuals rise to the occasion or fall based on their abilities and willingness to cooperate with God’s grace.
The Church has never had the outward appearance of uniformity, which strikes me as closer to the ideal you state. And truly, you conservatives can’t even agree on it yourselves. Have you read Mark Shea lately? Especially his commentariat?
Clearly, unity is something far more subtle, and far less controllable than you think. I appreciate your anguish over this. I trust it to be sincere. But to my eyes, it’s just delving up older brother crap. Get over it and work on your own faith and stop with the expectation everybody’s going to line up behind you. You are not the Savior. You don’t have the vision. The conversion to be urged isn’t a conversion to your vision of Catholicism, but to Christ. The one who imparts grace in spite of ourselves. Not you.
It becomes a smaller house.
I can only accept the comment that Pope Francis is drawing people back to the Church.
I would be staggered if that was an ongoing or long term result.
I still make the point that he has said things that appear to undermine traditional Church teaching, and I know that some of his comments caused great hurt to those Catholics that have been literally at the front line fighting the scourge of abortion. I think to insult and hurt them was a terrible thing to do.
His dismissal of those who had said rosaries for him was both thoughtless and un-Catholic..
If you would be staggered, just consider it is your Catholic duty not only to pray for it, but also work for it.
I don’t think any of us were there when Pope Francis is said to have dismissed–count ’em–352,500 Hail Mary’s. What’s the point: the numbers or the generous act of praying for someone? When I pray for someone, I don’t come back and report, “I thought of you 17 times when I said this prayer, and I remembered you six times in the morning and 20 times in the evening.”
The bottom line is that we’re talking gossip here. Reliable? I’d rather focus on the encyclicals and interviews.
And apparently the interviews are–or are not–reliable, depending upon the meaning one wishes to attach to them.
Encyclicals are another matter.
If the Pope’s words “appear” (as Paul states above) to undermine traditional Church teaching, then they DO undermine it. There haven’t been any retractions made that actually reiterate received doctrine/Tradition as it has always and everywhere been understood (and I mean, black & white, hard & fast retractions that no one with elementary legal knowledge can spin). And don’t argue that the poor Pope can’t say anything without having it spun. For what else on Earth is the Papal monarchy? So, therefore, we must base conclusions on the WORDS used and reported. Those words have meanings. To argue that Bergoglio’s words don’t have meaning(s) is to go off into syncretist-matrix-land.
His comments about being obsessed with abortion etc were not gossip. That is a clearly documented by the Pope.
It caused great hurt to those in the front line of the fight against abortion .. and no apology from the Pope.
So, the pope speaks what he feels to be the truth about priorities of the Catholic church, and you’re response is that he owes you an apology?
Pretty arrogant on your part.
Arrgh! Used the wrong “your” – that’s going to cost me some purgatory time…. 😀
Those in the pro-life movement really are owed an apology. They are now facing clinic workers holding up signs bearing the pope’s words, and every commentator on the left has co-opted him on the topic.
He has made their work – already tremendously difficult and emotionally taxing – that much harder.
A correction is one thing, and needed. Not just saying one thing one day and a different thing the next, but addressing the specific confusion he has caused in a definitive way.
But he has severely wounded the pro-life movement’s efforts, and if he did not mean to do so, an apology would go a long way toward showing his solidarity with their suffering, some of which is now, however unintentionally, of his own making.
“Those in the pro-life movement really are owed an apology.”
They are not.
What are they in the movement for: kudos from higher-ups and pats on the head?
Maybe the ones who are really stressed out about this need to take a break. The world doesn’t depend on them.
And if the political pro-life movement is wounded, maybe that’s for the good. I’ve been pro-life my whole life and ALL and Frank Pavone and the GOP certainly don’t speak for me.
Those in the pro-life movement don’t need an apology; they need a Catholic in the Chair of Peter who actually accepted the sede and the papal tiara and wasn’t merely installed or inaugurated as “Jorge” the clown. Ooops wait…the U.N. (aka the ‘one’) got the tiara a long time ago.
People read into comments what they want to read. CCC 2478 suggests a positive presumption in the absence of evidence. If people dislike Pope Francis or they were expecting a hyper-Ratzinger as Pope Pius XIII, they will always look for facts out of context or even fiction to justify their opinions.
Well, at some point, it has to be “your” version of Catholicism because you can’t follow what you don’t understand or know. To say “you don’t have the vision” is extremely condescending and inaccurate because, you know what, you don’t have it either.
MY vision is the only one I got. Just as YOUR vision is the only one you got. Each of us can have no other. The question we have to ask ourselves is how close to the true vision of Catholicism is each of our respective visions of it. THAT is what the fighting centers around.
Hello Steve
For starters, a brave series of articles; there are many of us out here on the fringes who are grateful to you for articulating our concerns.
I teach RCIA.
What do I say in the class later this year to the person who quotes Pope Francis on the loneliness of the aged and tells me that she doesn’t think we should devote a whole class to explaining the Catholic position on life issues? How do I respond to the medical student grappling with his internship that requires that he participate in abortions, when he asks me how he should interpret the Church’s prohibition as opposed to the Pope’s apparent downscaling of the importance of the issue?
How do I respond to the person who asks me why he should ask to be received into the Church after completing RCIA, when the Pope has clearly stated that proselytising is overrated?
How do I respond to the student who asks me whether my explanation of the Catholic understanding of divinely-revealed Truth as received from Almighty God is relevant given the Pope’s statement that we should kinda make it up as we go along, pardon the paraphrasing?
You see, ultimately, we can argue for days and months and years about inflections, emphases, interpretations and so on, but ultimately, ultimately, this is where the rubber hits the tar.
It is very, very difficult to articulate Church teaching and explain the Catechism when what has been said to date raises some serious caveats.
Despair, although a sin, does not even come close.
1. Care for the elderly is a life issue.
2. Pope Francis has spoken clearly against abortion.
3. Because he came to the Church, drawn by grace. There is a huge difference between proselytization and evangelization.
4. The pope didn’t say that, and it’s up to you to explain it.
RCIA, and Catholic Christianity as a whole will do better when it’s less about teaching people about Catholicism like it’s a school subject and more by taking them by the hand and showing them, as Thomas Aquinas suggested.
Maybe it’s time for less despair and more discernment.
It really is as easy as all that I guess! I will also be sharing the immensely helpful advice about discernment. I am grateful that at least we don’t teach RCIA as a school subject. Might have been a third strike! 🙂
Don’t let it get to you, Clint. Todd’s condescending way of telling you that everything you thought you knew about Catholicism is really just a misunderstanding gets to everyone.
FWIW, you’re absolutely right. Your original comment illustrates exactly my concern: people in the trenches who are actually teaching the faith (because it *is* substantive, does include many concrete teachings, and therefore *must* be taught like a school subject while simultaneously being lived) are the ones who will be hurt the most by these statements. In my mind, RCIA, missionary work, and apologetics are all ground zero for the fallout from what is going on.
As for Todd’s point-by-point:
1. Loneliness of the elderly fall under the corporal works of mercy far more than life issues. Euthanasia is a life issue. Loneliness is something other. Important? Yes, of course it is. But it is not the MOST important evil facing the world, and there’s really no way you can twist it into first priority, or even the top five.
2. BFD. The comments that he’s made de-emphasizing the importance of the Church talking about abortion have overwhelmed and negated his ancillary statements on the topic in the eyes of those who aren’t reading his every homily and Wednesday audience. Making teaching these truths much, much harder.
3. This is an extremely trite response. Conversion involves a good deal of personal sacrifice and causes no small amount of strife in relationships if family and friends disagree with the change. I once had a Muslim woman ask me why she was risking the dangers posed by her family for converting when she kept hearing in RCIA that Islam was a valid path to God? This was *before* Pope Francis. I can only imagine the way people who believe they have a relationship with Christ but don’t have to follow the hard teachings of the Church on things like contraception are second guessing whether it’s really necessary.
4. The pope has emphasized and re-emphasized the importance of conscience to an absurd degree. The same Church that still holds as a valid theological viewpoint that even the unbaptized babies of Catholic parents may, in fact, not be allowed into heaven is stretching credulity when the Vicar of Christ on earth is telling atheists that if they follow their conscience they can be saved. We’re not dealing with the noble savage who hasn’t heard of Christ and follows the natural law. We’re talking about literate, tuned in, Internet-access capable atheists who are *choosing* to not follow Christianity and following the dictates of their conscience instead.
Good luck proving that pope isn’t saying anything. He isn’t specific enough on these issues to merit certitude.
Arguing with you is like punching clouds, Todd. No matter what someone says, you manage to throw up a smokescreen that not only makes them look like their understanding of the faith is immature or poorly developed, but that your non-answers are the sine qua non of modern Catholic theology and ecclesiology. Arguing that someone should have “less despair and more discernment” is nothing but a platitudinous turn of phrase if you’re not advocating discernment of specifics. And when people *do* discern something you disagree with, you want them to go “discern” some more.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, but your approach to this conversation is an enormous distraction from any productive outcome for Catholics struggling with this. It amounts to, “If you have concerns with what Pope Francis is saying, you’re clearly the problem, and if you don’t agree, you should keep thinking about it and suppressing your instincts and knowledge until you do.”
Steve, having a discussion with you isn’t a pleasant thing either. You can’t stick to the topic, and you turn every difference of opinion into a war. You can’t leave the ad hominem off the table.
You seem annoyed because I disagree with you. Man up and get over it. It’s not about you. Sometimes it’s just better to assess that people come at challenges from different places and tackle problems in different ways.
You have a problem with Pope Francis and other Catholics do too. Fine. We get it. It seems most Catholics don’t. Maybe there’s something to that you haven’t considered yet.
I’m not on topic? Really? It’s my topic. I’m all over it.
Ad hominem, really? Because I was attacking how you look, or the way you smell, or the way you’re always hanging out with riff raff?
Or is it because I insist, and always have, that your arguments are non-substantive? They’re not based on anything other than your “enlightened” (no, you didn’t use the word but that’s the sense you’re telegraphing) view of Catholicism.
I don’t care that you disagree with me, I care about the way you disagree with me, and everyone else for that matter. You adopt a pseudo-peaceful, paternalistic tone and tell people how wrong they are. You have this smug, “We’re all different in this vast marketplace of ideas and need to be accepting of these differences, but I submit that your view is childish and lacking reflection” flavor to the comments you make.
I *like* debating with people who have something to say. I like people who give me something worth considering that is outside my viewpoint. Those people cause me to change, and grow. I don’t see that with you. And frankly, I’ve put up with it until now, because despite your insistence that I think it’s about me, I don’t particularly care. I have better things to do But your dismissive response to Clint — the *exact* kind of person I was thinking of when I started writing about this — was just a little too much.
If you don’t like my responses or approach, feel free to leave. Last time I checked, I’m paying for the hosting here. Maybe you and Andrew should go hang out. You don’t seem that interested in debating with him, so you should have a “dialogue,” or something equally euphemistic.
I apologize for being needlessly provocative in my response to you. Run your blog and be as troubled, indifferent, or as insulting as you like. When you have nothing to say to the topic and insult other people, yes, you’re off topic. Honestly, I have no problem with new things coming up in a conversation. If I adopt an arrogant tone in your view, fine. Perhaps you put everything into an American Republican worldview and get trussed when it doesn’t fit. Not everything Catholic can be fit into political categories. I don’t think much at all of Catholics who conduct themselves online as if every problem can be fixed with nails and they are the perfect hammer.
As for Clint, certainly, there are more detailed and involved answers to give. The pope doesn’t strike me as supporting a person “making it up as one goes along.” I still think there’s a lot more to Thomas Aquinas’s maxim than either of you gave credit.
Jesus didn’t give people books or scrolls. And neither did the great evangelists of history: Paul, Augustine, Matteo Ricci, Francis Xavier or the rest. There’s something more to RCIA than conducting classes in moral theology. People inquiring about Catholicism seem to want to know how to be a Catholic, even in a time of doubt, not how to think like a Catholic. Running Catholicism like everything can be learned from a book strikes me as dumbing down the faith to just another intellectual thing, like learning Spanish, or changing my car’s oil, or roasting a turkey.
I just think y’all are missing something and you seem unwilling to ponder that reality.
So I’m out. And if peace bothers you, Steve, just stuff it.
“And if peace bothers you, Steve, just stuff it.”
Like I said, Todd. It’s pseudo-peace. You’re just as nasty as any other polemicist. You’ve just learned to couch it in veiled language that sounds vaguely nice while in actuality being fairly inflexible and uniquely patronizing.
We will *never* reconcile our worldviews, or our takes on Catholicism. Of that, I am fairly certain. It’s been years since we’ve interacted, and without even the slightest pause, it’s the same again.
I’m not interested in fighting unwinnable battles. I’ve wasted too much of my life on that. I’m sorry that we can’t sit down at the table together and play-act diplomacy, but we can’t. We just don’t have enough common ground, and neither of us is willing to compromise.
On the day after Thanksgiving and approaching the season of Advent, it could be helpful if each of us could sit down, share a meal in humility, look the other person in the eye and say “You could be right.” or “Perhaps I spoke too quickly.” or maybe even, “I was wrong, will you forgive me?’
I saw this on someone’s desk a while back and am reprinting it in the Spirit of Thanksgiving and the approaching season of Advent…
A Surprise in Heaven
I dreamt death came the other day and Heaven’s gate swung wide;
An Angel with a halo bright ushered me inside.
There to my astonishment stood folks I had judged and labeled
as “quite unfit” or “of little worth” or “spiritually disabled”.
Indignant words rose to my lips but never were set free,
For every face showed stunned surprise…not one expected me!
Anonymous
God Bless Us, Everyone!
Tim
Tim, I wish 1) there were “like” buttons for your comment, and 2) that every single believer in the God of any of the world’s religions had your post projected in the air in front of their head for their whole lives. Well said.
Hello Andrew,
I wish that there were more discussions about Christ here. Issues can be argued with arguable facts. Conspiracy theories and intuition abound. The only truth I know with certainty is that Christ is the truth. (The Creator of all must be the truth – who else could write the rules for that which He created?) He told us this and this is His word in Scripture.
I came across a book called Conversation with Christ by Peter Rohrbach. As I read this book to try to bring about a deeper relationship with Christ in my life, I am intrigued. This relatively small book which follows the teachings of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross is a real gem and a challenge to follow. This and a book that a lady gave to me called “God Calling” (an inspired message for each day of the year) are truly remarkable in learning more about the nature of God and less about the nature of man and religion that we spend so much time arguing about. I believe that if we as Catholics want to change the world, we must first allow ourselves to be changed into the image and likeness of God that we were created to be. The best way to do this is by conscious contact with Him. A study of church laws, church hierarchy, and even the best theologians and apologists cannot replace this.
I am glad that you enjoyed the “Surprise in Heaven.” It caught me by surprise the day I first saw it, and I must admit that I went back to the desk I found it on many times to re-read this message of humility.
Thanks indeed, Tim, I sure did. I am actually not Catholic myself, although I find Catholic ritual and people both as beautiful as can be. In my beliefs, I think there is something almost everyone on earth would take issue with–those who take Scripture completely literally are annoyed when I mention that even Jesus Christ cautioned us not to do so (the parables He told, and His mention that “how is it that you do not understand that I do not speak to you concerning bread? but beware of the LEAVEN of the Pharisees and Sadducees” indicates that we must take much of the Scripture as figuratively meant, not literally).
Those who take Scripture as secondary to the Church’s (or another church’s) interpretation of it are annoyed when I mention that this has proved very changeable over the centuries.
All of the above are annoyed when I believe that one can be as blameless as a human can be, and live a life I would not change one iota, even when they follow a different ascended Master than Jesus, as many revere Moses, or listen to buddha, or follow Ali and/or Mohammed.
And atheists are annoyed that I believe in God or Christ at all.
However, one thing above all has always seemed certain to me: some people seem to feel that “well, I KNOW all this stuff already–the only question is how well or how badly I follow this set of rules we’ve been given.” Yet if we allow that Christ knew more about God or the universe than we do, then given that Jesus never said a word about people who were born hermaphrodites, or whether or when it’s all right to open someone else’s mail, or any of a thousand other things not mentioned in the Scripture, then how on earth can we claim that we know everything that He’ll have to say to us about it, in the end? How can we claim that Jesus won’t say “here are the MILLION things you were wrong about, and here are a MILLION things your debating opponents were wrong about, and here are a billion things you were _both_ wrong about”? I try not to declare certainty about anything, but that is the one thing I AM certain of, if I’m certain of anything.
I’ll look for that book, thanks!
Andrew, there are good teachings on various subjects out there. For example, I have listened to Professor Janet Smith’s talk called “Contraception, Why Not? dozens of times. Each time I learn something new and I become more convinced on the teachings of the church. It took me quite awhile to come to this realization.
I like this quote from Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence (The Secret of Happiness and Peace)
Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must be taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. ‘Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives’ is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, ‘and God intervenes everywhere.’
The entire book is available on-line at Our Lady of the Rosary Library.
https://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/trustful/
I learned two very important truths from the book “God Calling”. It took me many years to get to the point where I was willing to accept them.
1. All is well.
2. God is good.
Once we know that we are deeply loved by God and that our lives are in the hands of a loving God, we have the beginnings of peace in our lives. All of the other issues become workable when we can begin to grasp these essential truths.
It really is that simple. For many (including myself), the hard part is accepting this. I guess sometimes we just make it harder than it really is…
All is well,
God is good,
Tim
You are a sinner complaining about the alleged sins of the Pope. Because you do not understand your own sins (pride, self-righteousness, the lack of mercy), you do not understand the message of mercy that the Pope is trying to spread.
Your self-deprecation is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. It is a meaningless attempt to try to humble yourself, like a lion hiding in the grass, so that you can then pounce on your prey.
The issue of infallibility is moot, and was wrong the moment it was uttered. However, your own sense of infallibility is pretty strong. Pride is a twisted thing, wherever it is found. One certainly is not superior because of their position. Redemption is on a personal level, not based on association or office. The claim that God will be merciless to all but Catholics, and that only Catholics can be infallible, is wrought with doublethink contradictions. (Every religion and splinter group makes the same ridiculous claims, btw). Please try to give Satan his due. Confusing the righteous is what he intends to do, and your posts reveal that he continues to have astounding success.
Go back to the beginning. You say that you are a sinner. How does your sin lead you to interpret others, and more specifically, those things that you do not understand or disagree with? The reason Jesus says to love your enemy is because once you do so you will discover yourself. You created your enemy in your head. He isn’t real. Whether the enemy is the Pope, liberals, Muslims or everyone who disagrees that you are the most intelligent person in the world, it is an enemy that you defined. They, likewise, have created their own enemies.
Looking up ideas and guidance in books is fine, but do not confuse reading and agreement with personal enlightenment. The Spirit has imbued all of us with the answers we seek. The saints that you described as impossible to live up to were no different than anybody else, but they trusted and heard the spirit better than what you have experienced yet. Give it time, keep trying, and you will. You will look back at your writings and be aghast someday.
You are a sinner complaining about the alleged sins of the Pope. Because you do not understand your own sins (pride, self-righteousness, the lack of mercy), you do not understand the message of mercy that the Pope is trying to spread.
Your self-deprecation is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. It is a meaningless attempt to try to humble yourself, like a lion hiding in the grass, so that you can then pounce on your prey.
THE. PRECEDING. IS. AN. UTTER. CROCK.
Mr. Consilivio, you do a great job of making people guilty when they have no reason to feel guilty. That is The Catholic Way, sadly. It’s nothing but a manipulative tool to silence those who have the courage to speak out. It is institutional narcissism disguised as “righteousness.”
Do you think the prophets weren’t sinners? Just look at Jonah. At first, he refused to fulfill his divine mandate. But when he did, the people of Nineveh repented.
The fact that all men sin does not relieve them of the moral responsibility to call a spade a spade, as it were. Mr. Skojec’s concerns are quite legitimate and he certainly isn’t the only Catholic to have them. Far from it.
BTW, the Pope is a sinnner. So were all of his predecessors. So are all Catholics. So are all Christians. So are you. Only the sacrifice of the only perfect person who fulfilled the Mosaic Law makes those who embrace it righteous in God’s sight.
Steve Skojec, has absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. But you, by defending a decrepit institution and using that defense to self-righteously intimidate another person, are another matter.