How to forgive Pope Francis

[Teek]

OneSheep:
“in the spirituality I know, my inclusion follows my love.”

I disagree. In the spirituality I know, sometimes the greatest act of love is exclusion, or judgement. They have to be told of the danger they are in. From St. Paul:

Ephesians 5:5-8
5 Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not associate with them,
8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light

2 Timothy 4:1-4
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

 

[Teek]

Could God possibly be less forgiving, less inclusive, less unifying than I am in my own relationships? If so, please inform me.

I cannot say for you, because I don’t know you. But is it possible for a person to be more forgiving, unifying, and inclusive than God? Not in truth. However, if they attempt to call united that which is opposed, or include what has chosen exclusion, then yes. A person can be doing more of those things than God, and that is not good.

As far as forgiveness… You can “forgive” a person for what they have done to you without repentance, if you choose. God has revealed and the Church teaches that mortal sin requires repentance for forgiveness and absolution. That isn’t our domain at all—we cannot forgive one man the weight of one sin. In that way we could not possibly be more forgiving than God.

But I don’t think you mean “forgiveness” in the way I use the word. It sounds like what I call tolerance—no matter what, that person is accepted for inclusion by you. Even if the hierarchy of the Church has said that what they have done has excluded them. Could you be more tolerant than God? Emphatically yes! You could accept false idols as legitimate. God does not tolerate idolatry. You could accept polygamy as a good. Jesus defined it as adultery. You could say that sin doesn’t matter for the eternal destination of the soul—but that is in opposition to what Jesus taught, and the Church still teaches.

Do you think absolute inclusivity is the highest value in the range of possibilities inclusivity/exclusivity? Or absolute forgiveness? Or absolute unity? Are these your qualifier for ultimate good?

Jesus Himself said:

Luke 12:49-53
49 “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!
50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!
51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

And then, if a person, even a hierarchy of people, were to exclude someone that I would not, does this exclusion mirror the Abba that I know from within, the Abba I know through my own prayer life? Well no, it does not.

A person’s subjective belief about God does not change who He is. He is objective Truth. You may be able to accept opposing beliefs as both being fine, but it doesn’t make them both true. And if one is not true, it is deception or error. Not of God.

 

[LilyM]

Teek, what I know is that most people respond very poorly indeed to being force fed dogma and doctrine that they do not believe and then shunned if they do not swallow it whole.

Usually the best way is to stand up - firmly and kindly - for what you believe if asked, explain if challenged - without condescension or badgering - and live the best example that you can to draw people to the faith.

Eucharist is a unique kettle of fish because it is the source and summit of our faith, and so powerful. But even there, given the difficulty of knowing the hearts and minds of other people, there is at least some room for allowance for ignorance and good (if misguided) intent.

 

[Teek]

@LilyM

I’m not certain what your response is responding to from what I said.

 

[Teek]

Teek, what I know is that most people respond very poorly indeed to being force fed dogma and doctrine that they do not believe and then shunned if they do not swallow it whole.

We were discussing people who believe, but believe different things.

Besides, the most important thing isn’t what you do. It is the Kerygma, the Truth of the Gospel. The Living Truth. It isn’t you that does the work. It is the Holy Spirit. You present the Truth, the Holy Spirit is the one that opens people’s hearts. If you do not present the Truth—sow the seeds—it doesn’t matter what kind of ground they have going—nothing can grow.

 

[LilyM]

A person’s subjective belief about God does not change who He is. He is objective Truth. You may be able to accept opposing beliefs as both being fine, but it doesn’t make them both true. And if one is not true, it is deception or error. Not of God.

Teek, objective truth does not change, but subjective understanding and ability to understand, and so individual guilt and punishment, absolutely does.

For that matter some of this is due to God’s choice to reveal Himself slowly, over millennia and many generations of human history.

Note your own words - either deception or error. And most folks don’t set out to knowingly or negligently deceive either themselves or others. Which leaves error. One can err but still be honest and honestly doing ones best and therefore bear no.guilt.

Do you take your young child who honestly but mistakenly gets its alphabet or times tables wrong and send it away from the family dinner table.without supper for daring to make a mistake? Even when it may not immediately, or for some time, understand you trying to teach it better?

The majority of people who err, or.even sin, are that child - not wilfully rejecting a known and understood (by them) truth. That is why Jesus did not berate or insult - or.even lecture - every single sinner who crossed His path. Instead He saved the serious criticism for a select few occasions where He knew - with godly certainty that you and I will not possess on this earth - that people were wilfully sinning.

 

[Teek]

Teek, objective truth does not change, but subjective understanding and ability to understand, and so individual guilt and punishment, absolutely does.

For that matter some of this is due to God’s choice to reveal Himself slowly, over millennia and many generations of human history.

Note your own words - either deception or error. And most folks don’t set out to knowingly or negligently deceive either themselves or others. Which leaves error. One can err but still be honest and honestly doing ones best and therefore bear no.guilt.

Do you take your young child who honestly but mistakenly gets its alphabet or times tables wrong and send it away from the family dinner table.without supper for daring to make a mistake? Even when it may not immediately, or for some time, understand you trying to teach it better?

The majority of people who err, or.even sin, are that child - not wilfully rejecting a known and understood (by them) truth. That is why Jesus did not berate or insult - or.even lecture - every single sinner who crossed His path. Instead He saved the serious criticism for a select few occasions where He knew - with godly certainty that you and I will not possess on this earth - that people were wilfully sinning.

We were discussing whether someone could ascribe to an ideology that is less worthy of being included in the Church. In that case, the one that conforms to objective truth is most worthy.

We were not discussing God turning people away, but whether there are ideologies that make one less conformed to truth, and whether truth can be known.

That is why we discussed a person who is in error unknowingly, and how this differs from one who is willfully ignorant.

I do not agree that most people who sin are just in an almost accidental error. First of all, an accident is not a sin.

Most importantly, no one can claim to be ignorant of divine law, the law written on every human heart. To some degree, the conscience knows that the act is against God’s law.

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

(Emphasis added.)

 

[Teek]

Note your own words - either deception or error.

Yes, I was talking about objective reality. If it is not truth, it is a lie, a deception, a “leading away from truth”.

That was not the same as saying everyone who believes it is lying. But whether they know it or not, it remains a lie if it is not conformed to truth.

 

[Teek]

with godly certainty that you and I will not possess on this earth

We have also already discussed that this is God’s domain, not ours. Thank you for reiterating.

We were not talking about judging others, but of knowing truth and helping others to know it. To know who to help find truth, you need to be able to discern who is in need of being led to the truth—it requires a judgement. Not a condemnation, but a willingness to look at someone and accompany them from where there are to a deeper truth.

Instead He saved the serious criticism for a select few occasions

We were not talking about criticizing people, but about truth and it’s importance.

The great gift of faith was not given so that we can keep it quietly to ourselves.

 

[OneSheep]

Your post made sense… up until this part. I’m not certain why you’re characterizing things in this way, but it’s a subtle (yet critical) mischaracterization. The issue here isn’t “I’m more worthy than you to receive the Eucharist”, it’s a simple matter of whether there’s a factual basis upon which to say, “I’m sorry, but you cannot receive the Eucharist at this time.”

Hi Gorgias,

Hmmm. But since I was referring to entire groups of people, are you saying that entire groups (i.e. “liberals” or “conservatives”) are to be denied the Eucharist? I think you may have read that part as a “sound bite”.

Have a Merry Chiristmas!

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Obama is pro-choice. Very different from being pro-abortion.

 

[Gorgias]

But since I was referring to entire groups of people, are you saying that entire groups (i.e. “liberals” or “conservatives”) are to be denied the Eucharist? I think you may have read that part as a “sound bite”.

No – in context (i.e., not as a sound bite) – the group is “divorced and civilly remarried”, and yes, current Church teaching is that, inasmuch as they’re in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, they are unable to receive the Eucharist.

If, however, you were referring to ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’, then your argument gets a lot weaker. There’s no reason to suggest either group – as a whole – is ‘better’ or ‘worse’, ‘more worthy’ or ‘less worthy’ to receive the Eucharist. At the very least, it seems to be a bit off topic, in the context of AL.

 

[OneSheep]

A person’s subjective belief about God does not change who He is. He is objective Truth. You may be able to accept opposing beliefs as both being fine, but it doesn’t make them both true. And if one is not true, it is deception or error. Not of God.

I feel a little guilty about this, because you put so much work into your posts back to me, but I am going to have to limit my response because of my own time and our veering away from the topic of the thread. All of what you wrote is solid and well-supported, but so is also the position I present.

It is impossible to extract the subjective from one’s faith, because we all have different relationships with God. We could move this discussion over to my other thread:

Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? Spirituality

Jesus said: Luke 23:34New International Version (NIV) 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” It can be seen that Jesus not only forgave those who wanted Him dead, but forgave from His heart by using the gift of Understanding. He saw that they did not know what they were doing. Can this be applied universally? It seems to be so. I can’t think of a case where people actually know what they are doing when they sin, when using an all-inclusive definit…

I invite you to do so, because I like your charitable manner.

In the mean time, there is a really great book by the Linns, Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God, which presents the spirituality I am talking about in a more thorough manner. One of the guiding factors of the healing is “When words in scripture makes it sound like God loves you less than the person who loves you most, then something is amiss.” (This may not be the exact quote, but this is what they are saying).

“Deception” is not giving people the benefit of the doubt, Teek, but there is plenty of “error”! None of us sees with perfect eyesight, right? Every single believer has a slightly different image of God.

Have a beautiful Christmas, friend, and may He bless your ministry in RCIA.

 

[OneSheep]

No – in context (i.e., not as a sound bite) – the group is “divorced and civilly remarried”,

Here is the context:

I want to thank you for bringing up the ingroup/outgroup dimension of the whole picture. As you may remember, Jesus addressed this whole dimension in not-so-subtle ways.

In the time of His ministry, the Jews had many “outgroups”, like we all naturally develop. Their most resented outgroup were the Roman occupiers, of course. Jesus broke through this boundary by eating with some of them. Another outgroup were the Samaritans, who considered themselves Jewish but had a different “mountain”, a different holy/political center, and they were more “liberal” in that they supposedly incorporated some aspects of other religions (this is from what I remember). Jesus used a Samaritan as an example of a person who behaved in a merciful way, as opposed to people of status in His own ingroup (the good Samaritan story).

Tax collectors were also a sub-outgroup, sort of grouped with “sinners” in general, but they were particularly hated (for understandable reasons), yet Jesus did not exclude them from His circle.

I apologize if this sounds like a lecture, but please have the patience to hear me out on this.

One purpose of Eucharist is that we form a Body that worships together and can trust one another. Because so much of modern life is found “outside the Church” for people, they naturally come to form other other trust groups, and though those trust groups in the past were based more on race or ethnicity, in our multicultural society people have come to form trust groups (ingroups) around political/ideological affiliations. (As well as sports teams!)

One error occurs when one group claims that people of one particular political/ideological affiliation are themselves more worthy of the Eucharist than the other. Do you agree with this?

And then we have the other issue of those who consider Eucharist (in the context of the community of believers, a shared meal) less important than political ideology. Would you agree, also, that this runs contrary to Jesus’ ministry, as I described His words and actions above?

I can’t see a reference to the divorced and remarried there…

 

[Gorgias]

Here is the context:

Thanks for re-posting your entire post.

I can’t see a reference to the divorced and remarried there…

You know what? You’re right! I totally misinterpreted your post! Instead of it being a somewhat insightful post regarding the issues of AL, it seems it was just somewhat tangential.

Have a wonderful Christmas!

 

[OneSheep]

When Amoris Laetitia was released she was nervous. When Pope Francis endorsed the letter approving admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion as the only response to AL, she came to my house and demanded that I explain why she had to suffer so much if it didn’t really matter. She demanded how anyone in her situation could find Truth if they were left in their tepid indifference. She was so conflicted and confused.

So are a lot of us. But it isn’t necessarily what he meant! And then he won’t tell us. So we are left to conclude for ourselves and that is a dangerous proposition. He could so easily simply explain.

I understand your friend’s confusion and grief, but if she could imagine that her ex-husband never sought an annnulment, then she would probably have a different stance on the matter. I’m not rehearsed enough on AL, so I can’t make much comment, but can you see some good intent in letting the Spirit guide, ulitimately, the parish priest in this matter? Every case is so different, and it is a shame to block someone from communion when the situation is truly out of their hands. In the case you presented, we can’t possibly say that she must go back to her previous husband in order to receive Eucharist (when he refused the annulment)i.

These things are messy, and we have to begin with remembering that God has unlimited mercy.

He thought getting more involved would help him, only to be told by our pastor that he could not be an extra-ordinary minister or a lector unless he was living free of objective mortal sin. He was LIVID.

So the man’s confusion about the nature of Eucharist was an “objective mortal sin”?

 

[Gorgias]

can you see some good intent in letting the Spirit guide, ulitimately, the parish priest in this matter

It’s a good thought.

The problem is that this leads to confusing, conflicting, mutually exclusive interpretations. At this parish, some of the divorced-and-civilly-remarried people are receiving Communion. At that parish, all are. And at that parish, none are. The confusion of such a situation (“well… at my parish, you would be allowed!”) will cause more harm than good, and make Catholicism seem like an arbitrary exercise in rule-following.

 

[OneSheep]

My key words there were “good intent”. I’m not advocating that parish priests have the last say; they must be under the guidance of doctrine and protocol. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to have a “one size fits all” law and remain mercifully considerate of individual situations.

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” applies. While Jesus was not advocating that people completely disregard the Sabbath, He was saying that exceptions can be made, and need to be made.

 

[stpurl]

I am not criticizing Mr. Obama personally, but pro-‘choice’ (and I’m old enough to remember when this moniker was deliberately, pardon the expression ‘chosen’, and the context thereof) is most definitely by definition as much ‘pro-abortion’ as it is ‘pro-life’, meaning that the person seeks to fence sit and claim that abortion can be ‘ok for some’ and life can be ‘ok for some’.

And the thing is, it’s never the actual person involved (the child) who gets to ‘make the choice’. In far too many cases the mother has no real ‘choice’ either, being relentlessly pressured by those who themselves refuse to take on responsibility.

So yes, ‘pro-choice’ means that the person claiming to be such is indeed ‘pro-abortion’ ‘depending on the circumstances’ and who thus is denying the child his or her choice to live 100% of the time when abortion is ‘chosen’ by the parents. There is simply no way to be ‘only in favor of life’ and to be ‘pro choice’.

And those who are truly in favor of life know that even though abortion is evil, some will still choose or be forced into that evil. That was the case when abortion was illegal as well. The difference is that people then at least accepted their responsibility even when trying to abrogate it --they knew that they were committing one wrong but felt that this wrong was ‘outweighed’ by the lack of consequences of carrying the pregnancy to term. Unfortunately this passed into the fallacy of thinking that the ‘circumstances’ of the consequences could cause more evil than allowing the child to be born and adopted (the ‘end justifies the means’ fallacy) and in the last 40 or so years, a supremely evil and successful rewiring of the human psyche such that the ‘means’ now are no longer even seen as evil, but either ‘neutral’ or even ‘good’. For example, “Having a child would mean this woman would have to miss a year of school, have a negative impact on her career, and lead to poverty, even were she to give up the child for adoption. Therefore it is not only politic, but NECESSARY to abort the child. In fact, it’s the loving thing to do, so the child is not ‘unwanted’ or ‘abused’.” It never ceases to amaze me how many supposedly intelligent, ‘normal’ people have fallen for this dreck. . .

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not advocating that parish priests have the last say; they must be under the guidance of doctrine and protocol.

The problem is that, citing “doctrine and protocol,” individual priests will make particular decisions that conflict with each other. (Another problem is that not all will follow “doctrine and protocol”, but that’s a separate issue.) You know how it goes: scandal follows, if it seems that there are different standards in play for different people, at different parishes.

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” applies. While Jesus was not advocating that people completely disregard the Sabbath, He was saying that exceptions can be made, and need to be made.

Notice that Jesus was addressing people who already were able to fully celebrate the Sabbath, not those who (for whatever reason) were unable to do so. The ‘exceptions’ helped those folks take care of other business on the Sabbath – rather than relaxing the rules of how to celebrate the Sabbath liturgically…