How much clarity do we really need on Catholic teachings?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jack63

Guest
Sometimes I read here on CAF about the lack of clarity here on some (not all) Catholic teachings. I always think…you know…we have brains and we should use them. What’s our best judgment? How much clarity do we really need on Catholic teachings?

Below is an article about what Pope Francis had to say…
Jesus intentionally omitted telling his disciples many things so that the Church would learn to renounce the desire for clarity and order, the pope told participants in the 21st general assembly of Caritas Internationalis, the Church’s global charitable outreach.
Click to expand...
By not always giving “clear rules” that would quickly resolve issues, Jesus was protecting the Church from the temptation of “efficientism,” Francis said, which is the desire for the Church to have everything under control, avoiding surprises, with its agenda always in order. This is not the way the Lord acts, he continued. He does not send answers from heaven. “He sends the Holy Spirit.”
Click to expand...

Please try to refrain from significant criticism of Pope Francis in any discussion. I think he has potentially started a good discussion. I really want to know why Catholics seem to what so much clarity on what they should do and think. It is not usually what I want.
 
Last edited:
Lack of clarity usually means an unfruitful discussion. If no one is clear on the terms used then meaningful dialogue is essentially impossible. I’d rather lean a bit to the efficient side than lean towards confusion. But I don’t think Pope Francis is necessarily speaking toward the small degrees that I am, but more to the extremes. What I would caution is taking his words out of context or stretching their meaning too far. Because he is not a precise speaker, this is easily done. Not a criticism, but an observation.
 
@AlmaRedemptorisMater

I agree with your points. Here’s my observation from a broader context. Many political leaders get into trouble when they speak extemporaneously. That’s why they have speech writers, press secretaries, and other advisers.

God bless you.
 
jack63 said:
we have brains and we should use them. What’s our best judgment?
Click to expand...
That’s the attitude of Enlightenment which had good intentions (e.g., French peasants starving at expense of monarchy in 18th century) at first but now pendulum has swing too far other direction where each person is “in curvatus in se” (turned in on onself) meaning sin, from St Augustine. We see it every day with everyone on their phones, few people interacting, less people getting married, etc etc. Each person is living in their own little world, where they define the rules, the meaning, etc, which is what happens when we sin.

So while I understand where Pope coming from, I think we’re already too far away from “clear rules” end of spectrum and could use more of that and less of the ambiguity and subjectivism
 
Given he is addressing Caritas and their outreach, I can very well relate to this idea of “ efficientism”.
St.Mother Teresa also struggled with this difficulty ( not saying within herself but with the organization)in her lifetime at some point when help had become a sort of structure that risked turning into an ONG( to put it somehow).
And he is right. And we are pencils in God’s hands, and He will provide and He does. And when there is, thank you. And when there isn t, thank you…
Thanks Holy Father for the reminder. May God bless you always.
 
Last edited:
Neither does any human organization last 2,000 years as a free-for-all. We need:
  1. Clear rules regarding sin.
  2. Clear rules regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  3. Clear rules regarding canon law.
  4. The higher law of love governs all, but is not a license to re-invent the faith.
 
We wouldnt need any clarification at all if there were no ambiguity introduced. The Church is clear Jesus is clear. Take the issue of divorce and remarriage. Crystal clear. The teaching that one must be in a state of grace to recieve the Eucharist. Crystal clear. Introduce now ambiguity…
 
po18guy said:
We need:
  1. Clear rules regarding sin.
  2. Clear rules regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  3. Clear rules regarding canon law.
  4. The higher law of love governs all, but is not a license to re-invent the faith.
Click to expand...
Clear rules on sin is one thing. It has been discussed extensively here, in the press, and at churches around the country. To some degree, I understand the various sides of the many arguments.

However, for you point 2-4, I’m not sure where you coming from. I’m curious though where you are coming from.
  1. Clear rules regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
    Rarely do I see a mass deviate from any rules. Aside from some parishes needing to use more ordinary ministers (Deacons or Priests) to distribute Holy Communion, I very rarely see problems. Sometimes there are post here on CAF about supposed incidents with no names, dates or locations. What are possible problems that you are seeing that I am not.
  2. Clear rules regarding canon law.
    I’m not sure what you are referring to, but I’m interested.
  3. The higher law of love governs all, but is not a license to re-invent the faith.
    What is your biggest specific concern about an attempt to re-invent the faith?
 
Last edited:
"In the end, they did not need a bunch of doctrines and traditions. but the simple announcement that “God is love,” Francis said, and in the face of this great truth, “even convictions and human traditions can and must be abandoned, since they are more of an obstacle than a help.”

By nature we create and perpetuate traditions, doctrines and structures., They give us comfort and the illusion that was have security in the right answers, the proper ways. Remind you of the Pharisees?
 
I started a thread to understand the practical applications of amoris laetitia. Honestly, I’m not seeing the ambiguity. A marriage can’t be dissolved unless it is unlawful. This is what Jesus said. I’m not seeing a fundamental change in that teaching. Is there a crystal clear definition of what unlawful means in every conceivable case? No. Should there be?
40.png
The current and practical application of Amoris Laetitia for divorced and remarried couples Moral Theology
I understand this is a tough subject. I’m trying to understand how Amoris Laetitia is currently and practically being applied for divorced and remarried couples. FYI: I live somewhere in the US. I’m single and I’ve never been married. I don’t have a strong agenda on this one. However, I just don’t understand how these rule changes are practically being applied. I’m not interested in people’s opinions (personal or theological) on Amoris Laetitia in this thread. I don’t want this to digress into …
Click to expand...
 
I’d advise avoiding political websites as a resource for matters of Faith.
 
I once heard a homily from a more progressive priest urging us to regularly read Breitbart. The reason was to allow us to understand the arguments from every side on society, faith, politics, etc etc…

I think you should absolutely take what is said from a political website with a grain of salt. However, sometimes these websites catch some truth that no other site catches. We should discuss and clarify rather than shut down discussion.
 
Clarity and order are good, because truth is ordered and good. And God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth for salvation. Human sin introduces confusion and disorder, and that is what the Church must always strive against, not embrace as her modus operandi. Confusion and disorder being common in the Church in recent decades has done us no good–it kills vocations and causes souls to be swept away by the storm–we need to build on certain rock.

In fact, it is the clarity of doctrine that attracts many converts out of the world of confusion–the Church acts like a clear light on the hill with clear and ordered doctrine. This is how the Church “grows by attraction.” Ambiguous, confused, uncertain mush attracts no one.

True “development of doctrine”–a favorite phrase of this Pope–is about making clear what was once obscure, of making more precise, what was once rudimentary. It’s not about making what was once clear obscure, ambiguous, or different. Clearly professing the truth and true moral law in the face of ambiguities and uncertainties is what the Apostolic See has always done and must always do, despite any erroneous opinions to the contrary. That is how it has always strengthened the brethren in the faith. Rome should never be a source of uncertainty and confusion, although a few of its Pontiffs, negligent in their duties, have made it so over history–thankfully, Providence raised men like St. Agatho to the Apostolic chair to re-introduce clarity and order in the face of ambiguity and disorder, keeping the Church of Rome undefiled until the end in accordance with the divine promises.

God of course surprises us–after talking about the certainty we have that God will preserve His Church through any trial, Cardinal Newman speaks of where the surprise is found:
So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of {70} that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God.
Click to expand...
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/addresses/file2.html
 
Last edited:
Briefly, the corrosive, creeping influence of modernism addresses all of this. G. K. Chesterton wrote quite a bit about it - 100 years ago.

We have all seen (or should have noted) innovations in the Mass. While well-intended, it is Christ’s Mass, not the priest’s or that of the laity.

As to Canon law, it is simply the written framework around which order is maintained, disputes are resolved, discipline is adminsitered and the Church is handed on inviolate.

Love is the paramount rule, but love also loves what we have received from the Apostles, and loves also to hand it on as we received it.

Our culture, our age have crept into the Church and scandal always results. The Church is intended to change the world, not vice versa.
 
Last edited:
I would not believe anything written, or reported, by Breitbart. They do not seem to like Pope Francis.
 
Brietbart is biased. I have no idea ANY source you can go to that isn’t biased.
But this is being reported by multiple sources.

Sigh… we have entered a period of ambiguity in the Church where black can be grey and so can white… This does not pair well with a world that cant agree what a boy or a girl is.
 
Is there any way you think a person living in perpetual unrepentant adultery should receive the Eucharist?

Please, clear the ambiguity for me.

Is there any way you think it is licit and morally permissible for those in Zika infested areas to use condoms for sexual intercourse?

Please clear the ambiguity for me.

Do you think homosexuals should be in relatinships with other homosexuals?

please clear the ambiguity for me.

Do you think women can receive ordinations?

Please clear the ambiguity for me.

Do you think Martin Luther was a holy person and good for the Church?

Please clarify the ambiguity for me.

Do you believe God “Wills” people to pray to other gods?
Please, clarify the ambiguity for me.

And most concerning…
Should victims of sexual abuse by the Church be believed and should the Church institute concrete measures of protection and theology to weed these things out and toss them to the destruction they demand?
Please clarify the ambiguity for me.

The thing is that the Church historically HAS been crystal clear on these subjects. But for some reason “saying things by not saying things” has been the strategy of this papacy.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Is there any way you think a person living in perpetual unrepentant adultery should receive the Eucharist?

Please, clear the ambiguity for me.
Click to expand...
Of course not. On this one just I don’t see the church now or ever being unclear. Amoris Laetitia was about changing the way annulments are given. Some countries had no functional tribunal system. The US has the most functional tribunal system in the world. They added some temporary stopgap solutions in places with no tribunal system. This doesn’t change the clarity of the church’s teachings. The church should not need to give absolute strict guidance in every conceivable situation where an annulment might be requested.
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Do you think women can receive ordinations?

Please clear the ambiguity for me.
Click to expand...
Not to holy orders that men take. Nowhere is anybody “official” in the church saying anything to the contrary. They’re studying whether woman should be deacons based on historical evidence of what female deacons actually were in history. They existed, and people are trying to understand the role they played. There are several different ways to look at this…minor orders…different types of ordinations…etc. etc. What is the threat in studying it? I don’t see the threat here nor do I see the need for crystal clear clarity on many of the subtler points yet.
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Should victims of sexual abuse by the Church be believed and should the Church institute concrete measures of protection and theology to weed these things out and toss them to the destruction they demand?
Please clarify the ambiguity for me.

The thing is that the Church historically HAS been crystal clear on these subjects.
Click to expand...
Not on this one. Pope Francis inherited a disaster.
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Do you think homosexuals should be in relatinships with other homosexuals?

please clear the ambiguity for me.
Click to expand...
The CCC is crystal clear. This papacy isn’t contradicting it. What else is left to be said?
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Do you think Martin Luther was a holy person and good for the Church?

Please clarify the ambiguity for me.
Click to expand...
Again this is not what anybody is saying. Pope Francis is talking to the Lutherans and acknowledging some obvious mistakes by the Catholic church from 500 years ago. He is still clear on differences such as ordination for woman and papal supremacy. Would you rather have Catholics and Lutherans not talk? Is it always necessary to start out a conversation by blinding people with obvious differences that aren’t going to reconciled anytime soon?
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Is there any way you think it is licit and morally permissible for those in Zika infested areas to use condoms for sexual intercourse?

Please clear the ambiguity for me.
Click to expand...
Even Paul VI was not crystal clear in similar situations.
 
Last edited:
I think you should really pay more attention to what the Holy Father says…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top