Go Blatty

[Jack]

Sept 19, 2013 12:25:07 GMT -5 blueeagle said:

Will the ultra-orthodox/traditionalist factions within the Church start a counter-counter-reformation?

Is the Pope Catholic?

[pertinax]

As presented in the NY Times, the Pope's statements were edited to give them a meaning they do not have, e.g:

          “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.
           This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when
           we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church is
           clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

For the truth,  in the remote possibility that it might interest you, read the entire article in America:
                www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview

 








www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview

[TC]

Sept 19, 2013 13:40:42 GMT -5 pertinax said:

As presented in the NY Times, the Pope's statements were edited to give them a meaning they do not have, e.g:

          “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.
           This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when
           we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church is
           clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

Maybe I'm missing something here but the NYT article doesn't imply that the view of the Pope or the teaching of the Church has changed on gays, or abortion, or contraception. I guess I don't understand what the "meaning they do not have" that you are seeing is.

The quote I thought was pertinent to this thread in particular was how he was "amazed" by the complaints about the lack of orthodoxy and how they shouldn't be handled by Rome.

[CWS]

I've been in a lot of email chatter with friends and colleagues about how deeply moving the interview in America has been for a lot people in the short time since it's been published (11am today).  It's a stunning response.  The pope doesn't change any doctrine of course, but he places the emphasis right where it needs to be.  As the pope says, the Gospel is meant to encourage and give healing.  The church has not been good about emphasizing that central core of the Gospel message.  

Here's an article by a Jesuit that tries to pull out some of the more interesting statements by Pope Francis:

www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/listening-pope

[pertinax]

The Times article omits the following words:

"The teaching of the Church is clear and I am a son of the Church." 

When read without that, one easily gets the impression the Pope is changing Catholic beliefs.
Here, for example, is the story's headline in the NY Post:

"Pope: Stance on abortion, gays massive threat to church."

[blueeagle]

Whether you are traditionalist or a post-Vatican II hippie-catholic, I do not see how Pope Francis's message does not resonate with your Catholic beliefs and value system. You can be a pessimist and think that it is "re-branding" or marketing at play trying to get as many folks into the big tent. You can be an optimist and completely buy into this "the papacy got his groove back" notion. At the end of the day, it is a good message that is hard to argue against.

[quickplay]

Sept 19, 2013 15:01:18 GMT -5 pertinax said:

The Times article omits the following words:

"The teaching of the Church is clear and I am a son of the Church." 

When read without that, one easily gets the impression the Pope is changing Catholic beliefs.
Here, for example, is the story's headline in the NY Post:

"Pope: Stance on abortion, gays massive threat to church."

I know what the Pope said goes against the form of True Catholicism that you have been pushing on this board, but he still said it. You're really grasping at straw(men)s to make the takeaway from this the "impression" that a headline from the NY Post is worthy of discussion over the substance of what he said.

You can argue that he didn't change doctrine/beliefs all day, I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. But I'd be more interested in your reaction to what he actually did say, and what you think it means for the Church moving forward, even just considering it as an emphasis issue (makes me think of a justice department directive of enforcement policies...).

[sead43]

Sept 19, 2013 15:12:52 GMT -5 quickplay said:

Sept 19, 2013 15:01:18 GMT -5 pertinax said:

The Times article omits the following words:

"The teaching of the Church is clear and I am a son of the Church." 

When read without that, one easily gets the impression the Pope is changing Catholic beliefs.
Here, for example, is the story's headline in the NY Post:

"Pope: Stance on abortion, gays massive threat to church."

I know what the Pope said goes against the form of True Catholicism that you have been pushing on this board, but he still said it. You're really grasping at straw(men)s to make the takeaway from this the "impression" that a headline from the NY Post is worthy of discussion over the substance of what he said.

You can argue that he didn't change doctrine/beliefs all day, I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. But I'd be more interested in your reaction to what he actually did say, and what you think it means for the Church moving forward, even just considering it as an emphasis issue (makes me think of a justice department directive of enforcement policies...).

Amen. Emphasis matters. A lot.

It's the NY Post. They are going to write what gets them clicks, especially in headlines. But even so, just changing the word "stance" to "emphasis" pretty much gets it right. But yes, let's talk about what he actually said:

"The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."

"We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."

and there is plenty more in that interview. anyone who doesn't recognize the weight of what he is saying and has been saying simply doesn't want to recognize it. Substantive doctrine hasn't changed. But repeatedly hiding behind that reminder gets old and ignores the importance of emphasis and tone.

If this isn't a call from the pope himself to the "traditionalists" (or whatever you want to call them) to cool it, I don't know what is.

[TC]

Sept 19, 2013 15:01:18 GMT -5 pertinax said:

The Times article omits the following words:

"The teaching of the Church is clear and I am a son of the Church." 

When read without that, one easily gets the impression the Pope is changing Catholic beliefs.
Here, for example, is the story's headline in the NY Post:

"Pope: Stance on abortion, gays massive threat to church."

Sure, you could get that idea....if you completely ignore the entire NY Times article we're talking about which never says that, and only read a Teaser Headline from the NY Post.

[pertinax]

You could get, and clearly have gotten, quite a number of "ideas" by just reading the NY Times and Post articles, but if any of you sincerely want the total context in which he said what he said, and, therefore, the truth of it, I respectfully suggest you stop flapping your gums about it and instead make the effort to find out what it actually is by reading the entire interview in the Jesuit periodical AMERICA which runs, by the way, about ten times the length of the Post and Times articles:

www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/listening-pope

[DanMcQ]

Pope Francis FTW.

Obsessing about what the NY Times chooses to highlight and anything the NY Post puts in a headline is really tilting at windmills.

Nevertheless, even reading the entire interview one cannot ignore the quotes highlighted by the evil liberal NY Times. Francis is the descendant of Peter, isn't he? Or is that a sliding scale too now because we might not agree with what he says?

[quickplay]

Sept 19, 2013 19:27:01 GMT -5 pertinax said:

You could get, and clearly have gotten, quite a number of "ideas" by just reading the NY Times and Post articles, but if any of you sincerely want the total context in which he said what he said, and, therefore, the truth of it, I respectfully suggest you stop flapping your gums about it and instead make the effort to find out what it actually is by reading the entire interview in the Jesuit periodical AMERICA which runs, by the way, about ten times the length of the Post and Times articles:

www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/listening-pope

I just read it. What is the 'context' that everyone is missing? More importantly, feel free to let us in on the 'truth' of what the Pope said...

[Jack]

Yes, by all means read the America interview. It is extraordinary and gives me great hope for the future of the church. It is a phenomenal piece for those who have seriously considered the faith and what it means to "think with the church." It is unquestionably more than just a rebuke to those engaged in the culture wars, but it is certainly that, too. God bless this man.

[pertinax]

Thanks, Bulldog, and yes, it's wonderful in how it truly reflects Christ. In the meantime, for those who didn't notice that Francis qualified his comment about speaking of abortion, homosexuality and contraception with the words "all the time," it's taken only a day for him, noting the misunderstanding of things said in his lengthy interview, to make what he meant quite clear for those who have eyes to see:

"Pope condemns abortion in strongest pro-life comments to date, day after controversial interview

BY JOHN-HENRY WESTEN
Fri Sep 20, 2013 09:50 EST

"ROME, September 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a meeting with Catholic gynaecologists this morning Pope Francis strongly condemned abortion as a manifestation of a 'throwaway culture.'

'Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world,' the pope said."

[pertinax]

        For any of us who believe that Pope Francis is an iconoclastic non-traditionalist, it is useful to reflect on the following: 

        "We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity.

        "I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and '90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.

        "If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith - a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us."

        The words of Pope Francis? No. Pope Benedict.



Link added: www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2586/if_pope_francis_had_said_this_what_would_you_think.aspx#.Uj3BEdLkvlc

[pertinax]

From The Daily Telegraph, Today, Sept 23, 2013:

"Pope Francis excommunicates pro-gay marriage priest.
  He's not the liberal the media wants

Despite all due temptation, he remains a Catholic.

From all of last week's headlines saying that the Pope wants to forget this nonsense about abortion and gays, you'd imagine that Germaine Greer had been elected to run the Catholic Church. Actually what the Pope was saying was that he wants the Church to talk more about what it's for than what it's against. But that doesn't mean it won't still be against those things that contradict its teachings and traditions. Just ask Greg Reynolds of Melbourne – a priest who appears to have been both defrocked and excommunicated because of his radical views on women clergy and gay marriage. From Australia's The Age: The excommunication document – written in Latin and giving no reason – was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church.
The document might give no explicit reason, but the reason is implicit and well understood: Reynolds has offended Mother Church with his politics. It's interesting to note that the former priest tells The Age that he "wants the same thing as the Pope" which is "to encourage reform and clear need for renewal in the church." I read from this that Reynolds has, like many liberals, misunderstood Francis' words. Structural reform is clearly necessary to prevent future horrors like the child abuse scandal, and renewal is something that Christians always desire. But Reynolds would throw out Catholic doctrine – something Francis would never do because he is, despite the best wishes of so many in the media, a Catholic. His treatment of Reynolds proves that point."

[EasyEd]

Oh, stop raining on the parade of those who don't like Catholic doctrine.

[pertinax]

Mea maxima culpa.

[prhoya]

Well, actually, under Pope Benedict in 2011, the "priestly faculties" were withdrawn, yet he continued celebrating the Eucharist. Pope Francis just finished the matter:

"Father Greg Reynolds received a letter stating his ex-communication from the church just days ago after his resignation as a priest in the Melbourne Arch Diocese in 2011."

"Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said Father Reynolds was excommunicated by the Vatican because after his priestly faculties were withdrawn he continued to celebrate the Eucharist publicly and preach contrary to the teachings of the church."

www.theherald.com.au/story/1792584/excommunicated-priest-says-majority-agree-but-fear-reprisals/?cs=303

[pertinax]

So Francis didn't act simply because Reynolds was "continuing to celebrate the Eucharist," but because of the original reason his faculties were withdrawn, namely his defense of gay marriage. Just thought we should be clear.