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

[Gorgias]

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.

I don’t see that at all in the official text of the homily, as found on the Vatican’s website (Santa Messa per l’apertura dell’Assemblea Generale della Caritas Internationalis (23 maggio 2019) | Francesco). There’s no notion of “omission”, or of forcing the Church to “learn” something, per se.

I"m going from Google’s translation of the Italian, but I see this, instead:

Why had Jesus not always given clear and quickly resolving rules?

Here is the temptation of efficiency , of thinking that the Church is all right if she has everything under control, if she lives without shocks, with the agenda always in order, all regulated … It is also the temptation of casuistry. But the Lord does not proceed like this; in fact to his followers he does not send an answer, he sends the Holy Spirit.

 

[jack63]

While I hear what you are saying. That is there might be something lost in translation. That is kind of like splitting hairs through a google translation of Italian. I don’t know Italian.

What is the practical difference between the google translation you provided…something to the effect of not providing clear rules to resolve situations and what was quoted in the article. Not trying to debate you, just curious where you are coming from…

Why had Jesus not always given clear and quickly resolving rules?

This can’t be the correct translation. It doesn’t make sense in English.

 

[Gorgias]

Not trying to debate you, just curious where you are coming from…

The Breitbart article makes a couple assertions that I’m not seeing in the homily itself:

• Jesus intentionally omitted telling things to the disciples
• Jesus’ intent was so that the Church would learn to renounce a desire for clarity and order

The homily seems to say something different:

• those who want ‘clear rules’ that provide ‘quick resolution’ are tempted to efficiency. Not the Church, and not by Jesus’ express intent.

 

[jack63]

I agree that “Omitted” is not a good translation of what the Pope said. It implies that Jesus forget to tell something to the disciples, or he didn’t tell them something he should have. I don’t believe the word “Omitted” was implied.

Jesus’ intent was so that the Church would learn to renounce a desire for clarity and order

Actually that does seem to be what the Pope was saying through a rhetorical question.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually that does seem to be what the Pope was saying through a rhetorical question.

I took it differently. I took it as a reflection on an individual person who is tempted to think that efficiency/control/regulation is a virtue, but the pope is pointing out that Jesus’ approach was different – rather than send an efficiency engineer to run things for us, He sent the Holy Spirit to live in our hearts.

So, it seemed to me to be less a call to the Church and more a reflection on individuals…

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

One could also look at it as him telling us we don’t always need to know everything. For example, the Pope says things that confuse me. Now, instead of getting up in arms and demanding clarification, I can accept I don’t understand and move on.

 

[Dovekin]

it seemed to me to be less a call to the Church and more a reflection on individuals…

I do not see that at all. It is a call to individuals, but the call is to a Church “on the way.” Individuals need “the courage of renunciation” but so does the Church need to be able to leave behind traditions and practices as they left behind the Customs of God’s chosen people to embrace Gentiles.

The image of “The Way” is central to his point. The Church is not perfect, orderly, but on the way to God, constantly adapting as the path changes.

 

[njlisa]

@Hoosier-Daddy: What do you think of these ideas?

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

A Lutheran pastor friend of mine supports reunification with the Roman Catholic Church. He said Luther would be horrified that his schism led to 40,000 denominations.

Do you believe God “Wills” people to pray to other gods?

St. John Paul II created confusion when he kissed a Koran. When Pope Benedict clarified matters of Christian-Islamic history, he was denounced in some circle as a bigot.

 

[jack63]

Do you believe God “Wills” people to pray to other gods?

I googled St. John Paul II kissing the Koran. Yes that really happened. Most people just take it as a sign of respect. I think that is the key “Respect”. You can’t reach somebody on any level unless you fundamentally respect them. You need to respect their thought process and their culture.

So the Pope says God Wills the Diversity of Religions. I have no problem with this. The thing is this. How do explain many parts of the world where there has been no or very limited Christian outreach and evangelization historically? For example in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran, etc. In some of these places, historically people never met any Christians. I would say the fundamental reason why there are so many Muslims in the world, is that they haven’t had the opportunity to meet and discuss their faith with Christians. The same is true of people of different faiths Buddhism and Hinduism etc. The thing is you have to respect people deeply to evangelize to them.

 

[njlisa]

@jack63

Most people just take it as a sign of respect. I think that is the key “Respect”.

This quote from Surah 9:30-31 of the Quran shows that the respect is not mutual.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

Surah 5:72-73 condemns Christians to the fires of hell.

They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah, – Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

The Quran does not respect the “People of the Book.” No Christian or Jew should pay wholesale homage to the Quran, let alone kiss it. We would be better off highlighting the commonalities between our religions.

 

[jack63]

Thanks for the reply. It is an interesting reply. I had to think about this one. I’ve never read the Quran. I hear what you are saying to some level. However, I look at it differently. One of my favorite verses in the Bible (and one that I think is often misinterpreted) is Matthew 5:38-40.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well…

First, I don’t see this as a justification for pacifism. Jesus took a whip and cleared the temple in a different context. I see this as technique to deal with people where there is a real problem (Jesus says evil people). In other words, don’t sweat the small stuff with evil people, and instead you should be gracious. What is a slap on the face. I figuratively get slapped on the face all the time. We all do, right? I don’t care that much. Instead of making an issue, be gracious. This is what I see Saint JPII doing. I think it is pretty cool. He is trying to keep the conversation going. I really believe that Christians will succeed when they get a chance to discuss and teach their beliefs. Being gracious and “turning the other cheek” provides that opportunity. Does it give the clarity some people desperately want? Probably not…

A strange story regarding Muslims. I have had sick family members go to this very large Medical institution in the upper Midwest founded by Catholics. When I was there I went to church by this institution. The priest shared a story in one of his homilies about how Muslims would come to this clinic, and sneak into the Catholic church to be baptized as Christians. This would not be possible if you shut down a conversation or do anything that could be taken as putting down a culture. Just saying…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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).

Are you referring here to an “NGO” (non-governmental organization)? I am aware that the French acronym for that is “ONG” (organisation non gouvernementale).

And as far as the original question “How much clarity do we really need on Catholic teachings?”, I say “all we can get… all we can get”.

Clarity is a good thing. The more, the better.

 

[njlisa]

@jack63

I know this is not the case for you. But many people misunderstand the principle of “eye for eye.” It’s another way of saying “let the punishment fit the crime.”

Before the time of the law we see a hideous consequences of revenge against a whole city as opposed to punishment for the criminal.

I’m sure you know the story of the “Rape of Dinah.” For those who don’t know, I’ll give a quick overview. In Genesis 34, Hamor, prince of Shechem, took Dinah captive after having “lain” with her. As you know, Dinah was a daughter of Jacob.

Seeing Jacob’s inaction, two of her brothers, Simeon and Levi, wiped out all the men. The next day, her other brothers looted the village.

Let the punishment fit the crime “eye for eye” was a great advance over tribal revenge.

When I was teaching at a university, my most respectful student was an Muslim young man of Egyptian heritage. He was a delight.

On the other side of the coin, I worked as religion editor at a newspaper. A Muslim columnist who worked for my department was always trying to evangelize me. He was kind enough. But his hard sell was I had to give up damnation for being a Christian and accept Islam. Again, he was polite and kind, but I got sick of the dawa (evangelism).

 

[njlisa]

@jack63

I very much agree that Jesus was addressing “eye for eye” on the interpersonal level.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux illustrates this approach in “Story of a Soul.” Rather than seek payback against nuns who were grouchy and unkind, Thérèse showed them love. That’s the beauty of turning the other cheek.

 

[jack63]

Do you think women can receive ordinations?

Please clear the ambiguity for me.

I was reading an interesting article/blog by Father Longenecker about the study by the commission to look at female deacons historically. It’s interesting, and one of the points he made is that, while the study didn’t provide immediate clarity, ironically, it likely did a lot to move the issue in the direction of a definitive statement against female deacons and truly settling the issue once and for all.

Women Deacons and The Development of Doctrine | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The question of women deacons seems to have been pushed into a kind of Catholic never never land. The pope has said "No" but has done so in a way that sort of kind of maybe leaves the door ajar. Members of the commission he has set up are to go home and continue their studies.

dwightlongenecker.com

However, the history of the discussions on women priests indicates that the more study is done on an issue like this, the more clarity is achieved, and when that happens a definitive statement IS more likely to take place. Therefore all the detailed research and homework done by the likes of Phyllis Zagano may very possibly help the church to finally make the definitive statement against women deacons. The irony being that those who engaged on the research to promote their agenda of change will actually have contributed to the definitive statement against the change.

 

[Latinitas]

I definitely agree that the source is questionable, and some others have pointed out that the text of the homily may not have said that (the link didn’t work for me so I don’t know). Fr. Z also said nothing about it on his blog, and I’m certain he would have been all over it were it true.

Having said that, the reason that clarity is needed is because it is for everyone, no matter who they are or their state in life, to come to believe in the Catholic faith, and to hold the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the apostles, which the Church has safeguarded through so many centuries, inviolate. We should remember that it is in meditating on the mysteries of Faith that our happiness in this life consists, just as it is in the immediate vision of God that our happiness in the next life consists. Indeed, Sacred Scripture itself asserts “For God is not a God of confusion,…” (1 Cor. 14:33). Confusion is always a punishment for sin, as in the Tower of Babel or in the deceiving demon sent to Ahab (1 Kgs. 22:22).

Moreover, given how many enemies of Catholic truth there are in the world today, who wish to distort the teaching of the he Church, lack of clarity gives to these men cover, when the good of souls demands that they be exposed and corrected.

I should also note that, if the Pontiff actually said this, the comment about Jesus omitting things for the Church to discover is especially concerning. While I suppose this could be understood in the correct and orthodox notion of development of doctrine, wherein things that were formerly implicitly believed are believed explicitly by those later on, the words seem to imply that the teachings of the Church are the product of human reflection and thought, rather than truths which have been supernaturally revealed by God. The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Jesus Christ and the apostles - there is no difference between them whatever. It is true that through the centuries the Church has defined more and more dogmas, but these dogmas were already contained in the deposit of revelation. Anyhow, seeing as it’s gravely doubtful that the Holy Father actually said this, I digress.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas