Did you read his address? He didn’t say he was discouraged. In fact, among other remarks, he said “We have no reason to despair. We have every reason to hope.”.
I just looked over those sections…and I still don’t see what he sees about it that is “hopeless”. Those sections talk about the challenges to the family today, and then the next section talks about how to improve everything.
How can he be discouraged by so little? Where is his strength and resolve and optimism?
.
Right. I accept that the intentions and the doctrinal content are aimed that way. The concern is that this pastoral approach will not lead people to their best selves but tend to confirm and validate them without adequately calling them to pursue the best good for themselves and those they live with. I don’t think the concern is with doctrinal errors contained in the statements but with an inadequate pastoral approach.Exactly. This is what the working document is talking about.
.
I think both sides have valid points in this area. My approach as I have already stated is to be very soft, loving and encouraging even when someone is involved in serious sin. This approach works for a lot of people. Years ago I was convinced that my approach was the more loving and effective one. At that point in my life I feel like God sent me some people who really needed help, but who did not get it through the soft approach, later I saw them making progress through working with people that are harder on sin and bad behavior- more in line with Chaput. I have seen just as many cases of the reverse of that example also. I now take for granted that both approaches work very effectively for different kinds of people,Right. I accept that the intentions and the doctrinal content are aimed that way. The concern is that this pastoral approach will not lead people to their best selves but tend to confirm and validate them without adequately calling them to pursue the best good for themselves and those they live with. I don’t think the concern is with doctrinal errors contained in the statements but with an inadequate pastoral approach.
I think this likely involves a natural phenomenon, as we see manifest in politics where so many national elections in U.S. history have been nearly evenly split. It would seem this involves what is a natural duality where there really are differing perspectives of reality. One side of this duality involves a more analytical mode of thought, and it is not difficult to figure out which side it is. The other side perhaps involves a mode of thought that is more of synthesis and of a wider and more general understanding. There are many, many ways to describe this phenomenon. It could be understood as distributed along a normal bell-shaped curve where a particular person falls somewhere along the line and with only a relative few at either extreme.Unfortunately I don’t meet many people who can see beyond their own approach-- who can really empathize with the other perspective. I think the thought that a persons approach, however valid, is not useful in many situations causes insecurity in people and rather than face that insecurity they just deny it.
When setting the tone for a whole Church more than just one perspective must be taken into consideration.
It shouldn’t be either/or it should be both/and.I think both sides have valid points in this area. My approach as I have already stated is to be very soft, loving and encouraging even when someone is involved in serious sin. This approach works for a lot of people. Years ago I was convinced that my approach was the more loving and effective one. At that point in my life I feel like God sent me some people who really needed help, but who did not get it through the soft approach, later I saw them making progress through working with people that are harder on sin and bad behavior- more in line with Chaput. I have seen just as many cases of the reverse of that example also. I now take for granted that both approaches work very effectively for different kinds of people,
Unfortunately I don’t meet many people who can see beyond their own approach-- who can really empathize with the other perspective. I think the thought that a persons approach, however valid, is not useful in many situations causes insecurity in people and rather than face that insecurity they just deny it.
When setting the tone for a whole Church more than just one perspective must be taken into consideration. If the tone is to strict you will lose people who otherwise would have come to Christ, but the same can be said of the other side. It is difficult and I really have no idea how to formulate any of this in a way that wont lose some people. I pray that the synod will come up with what is best for this time period and the people in the church right now.
No matter what tone is struck it is certain that some will not be able to see beyond their own approach, experience and temperament.
I to do, but I will expand that to most of the participants of the synod, and especially, the Holy Father.I have much admiration for Archbishop Chaput.
He is definitely led by the Holy Spirit. God bless him.
This is really what I was getting at. I was merely sharing details from priests in my area that think that by patting people on the back you are not doing enough to bring people to the truth. Yes, we should meet people where they are, but not leave them there, but walk with them towards a greater goal. We don’t have to condemn every flaw, but at the same time we have to be careful to not give the appearance that any small bit of good outweighs any bad an a situation. It is all about movement from light to dark.When setting the tone for a whole Church more than just one perspective must be taken into consideration. If the tone is to strict you will lose people who otherwise would have come to Christ, but the same can be said of the other side.
But what I have highlighted is true of both sides of this debate. The larger issue is that the Church already is in crisis, particularly in Europe but in Latin America and the U.S. as well. It is arguable that this is a result of an overemphasis for some decades on one side of the equation and that this has alienated many since it is perceived as harsh and too judgmental. I believe this is not so much a rejection of Catholicsm itself but of a perception of its current state. The thing is, neither side is quite correct, and I believe Pope Francis knows it and is attempting to address it.It shouldn’t be either/or it should be both/and.
Presenting the positive experiential aspects of Christianity, joy, peace, contentment, are very attractive things which serve as motivation to follow Christ. Pointing out the good that exists in imperfect situations can serve to edify people and give them confidence. Is that confidence well utilized by the individuals or does it serve to comfortably entrench a person in their situation?
I know of literally no one who underwent serious conversion based on good feelings. It takes hard work and truthful evaluation of one’s self to attain to some joy, peace, and contentment. At some point a person must come to the realization of their deficiencies and the realization (hope) of who they can be. The hope is that the joy, peace, and contentment we have heard about will be attained, and will be lasting.
I believe the pastoral approach we are discussing will be misunderstood and abused to the detriment of those it is intended to love, because it is an incomplete approach. We tend to avoid the hard work necessary, preferring to staying where we are and feeling good about it. [emphasis added]
Agreed completely. I don’t see the soft approach as excluding this hard work at all. Not in the least. * It just comes down to what you lead with.* Again I take this approach with a lot of people in the area of prayer. I have watched the soft compassionate approach lead many people to and through the “dark night” spoken of by John of the Cross and into what i think is a very deep state of union with God. Serious and rigorous self examination is perfectly compatible with the soft approach in fact it is an essential part of it.It shouldn’t be either/or it should be both/and.
Presenting the positive experiential aspects of Christianity, joy, peace, contentment, are very attractive things which serve as motivation to follow Christ. Pointing out the good that exists in imperfect situations can serve to edify people and give them confidence. Is that confidence well utilized by the individuals or does it serve to comfortably entrench a person in their situation?
I know of literally no one who underwent serious conversion based on good feelings. It takes hard work and truthful evaluation of one’s self to attain to some joy, peace, and contentment. At some point a person must come to the realization of their deficiencies and the realization (hope) of who they can be. The hope is that the joy, peace, and contentment we have heard about will be attained, and will be lasting.
I believe the pastoral approach we are discussing will be misunderstood and abused to the detriment of those it is intended to love, because it is an incomplete approach. We tend to avoid the hard work necessary, preferring to staying where we are and feeling good about it.
I hear what you are saying. One of my greatest disappointments with the Catholic Church when I was investigating it was that many priests do not have the time to really participate in the spiritual development of the people in the parish. I saw way to many people slipping through the cracks who could have developed if they had more attention and guidance.This is really what I was getting at. I was merely sharing details from priests in my area that think that by patting people on the back you are not doing enough to bring people to the truth. Yes, we should meet people where they are, but not leave them there, but walk with them towards a greater goal. We don’t have to condemn every flaw, but at the same time we have to be careful to not give the appearance that any small bit of good outweighs any bad an a situation. It is all about movement from light to dark.
The clergy that I have heard that said that their reading of the document seems we are giving in the towel and feel that people are in danger of throwing up their hands and saying well 2 out of 10 isn’t bad and making no further effort. In some way it can be read as “we live in a fallen world, so we can’t attain perfection.” That might be true, but we don’t have to simply accept that the culture keeps dragging us down. This is why some prelates wanted a more balanced approach to not talk just about difficult situations, but also to hold up those that have been blessed in having families closer to the ideal.
One priest describe it to me as speaking as being at the bottom of a muddy hill trying to push people up the hill or simply resting with them and commiserating about how difficult the climb can be. He said that we need people both at the top and bottom. Those at the bottom to help lift them higher, but also those at the top to help pull them up and to show that it can be done. He simply felt that the documents focused on helping at the bottom, but not doing enough to tell them that there are also people at the top to help them reach the summit.
As I understand it, this duality is a natural phenomenon. I believe it is very much a part of God’s plan and is the dynamic (which at times does involve conflict) that will move the Church forward through history until the end of time and the full revelation.Individuals priests and spiritual directors seem to have specific temperaments (more nuanced than what we are discussing) and each temperament is suited best for working with certain others. The hardest job in the world is trying to set a tone for a whole Church that helps the most people and hurts the least.
Agreed. No one of us individually, and neither side collectively (not that there are only two sides) has or can comprehend the fullness of Christ. We each see only a small piece. Much of the conflict (not all) on these issues comes from not being able to see that we are only seeing a little and our brother and sister are seeing something we don’t and vice versa.As I understand it, this duality is a natural phenomenon. I believe it is very much a part of God’s plan and is the dynamic (which at times does involve conflict) that will move the Church forward through history until the end of time and the full revelation.
I agree. From the broader perspective, it would seem the understanding of each person is at a point of what in an earlier comment I suggested could be understood as along a normal bell-shaped curve. At times, perhaps this is manifest as a duality, as in a political ideology, a politiical party affiliation, in an election and even of a synod of bishops voting on a proposal. In that way, it is better to have an understanding that this is the case and that we do not yet know all there is to know concerning revelation. What then becomes problematic, as I see it, is then interpreting what is the dominant result of such a dualism as the Absolute Truth.Agreed. No one of us individually, and neither side collectively (not that there are only two sides) has or can comprehend the fullness of Christ. We each see only a small piece. Much of the conflict (not all) on these issues comes from not being able to see that we are only seeing a little and our brother and sister are seeing something we don’t and vice versa.
I did not always have this understanding. I was once rigid in my opinions and perspectives. There is more love, connection, peace and perspective knowing this. In place of a certain low level annoyance at people of the more analytical and sometimes more strict viewpoints I now feel genuine gratitude knowing they are helping people I may not be able to help-- I only wish this were returned by more people.I agree. From the broader perspective, it would seem the understanding of each person is at a point of what in an earlier comment I suggested could be understood as along a normal bell-shaped curve. At times, perhaps this is manifest as a duality, as in a political ideology, a politiical party affiliation, in an election and even of a synod of bishops voting on a proposal. In that way, it is better to have an understanding that this is the case and that we do not yet know all there is to know concerning revelation. What then becomes problematic, as I see it, is then interpreting what is the dominant result of such a dualism as the Absolute Truth.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto said his presentation to the synod would focus on the true meaning of accompaniment by looking at the Gospel account of the journey on the road to Emmaus.
“Two elements must be there,” he told Catholic News Service. “First we always must be with the people where they are, where they begin.”
But, just as Jesus was with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, “they were going in the wrong direction, actually, and they’re going into the night”.
Jesus’s fundamental message in this account is his call for repentance and conversion, and likewise, pastors and Catholics are asked to “help people to go where the Lord calls them to go”.
“Just to have accompaniment as people are moving in the direction away from the Lord is not enough. We need to be with them in order to help people to follow our Lord.”
“The truest compassionate mercy is a compassion that challenges,” he said. Receiving people as they are is the first step, he said, “but that is only the first thing. The second thing is to help them become what God wants them to be.”
There lies the conflict for most people, Christians or non-Christians.The truest compassionate mercy is a compassion that challenges,” he said. Receiving people as they are is the first step, he said, “but that is only the first thing. The second thing is to help them become what God wants them to be.”