How to forgive Pope Francis

[Teek]

“I understood that it teaches heretical views. (That Jesus visits us in Hell.). It also has a chapter on God pouting for thousands of years.”

This is all false. Their views are not heretical, and I never remember anything about God pouting. That sounds like what they may have been characterizing about a certain view. How do you know that your information source is valid? They address all the main scripture that is contrary. If you read it, read it in terms of expanding your understanding of different approaches to the Gospel, not as a book trying to convince you of something.

First of all, the book has the imprimipotest from the Society of Jesus, so it has been approved as not being contrary to the faith.

Although you can’t judge a book by its cover and maybe not even by its table of contents…here are the chapter titles that concern me…

God’s Twenty-Thousand-Year Pout

Jesus Comes To Be with Us in Hell

We Are All Good Goats

I have not read the book. (I have edited this post to add what another poster explained to me about the book, in bold. I can’t confirm or deny, but I want to be fair to the book, especially since I have not read it, so I added the favorable understanding.)

It has a chapter named “God’s Twenty-Thousand-Year Pout,” I don’t like characterizing God that way. (The title of the chapter is sarcastic because the author does not agree with this characterization of God, either.)

Jesus does not come to be with us in Hell, according to Catholic teaching. Hell is the absence of God. (The author meant that he joins us in our hell, as in our suffering on earth.)

Finally, Jesus himself said he came to separate the sheep from the goats. If he puts us to his right and calls us sheep, even if we were giraffes, we are sheep. However, that is not in dispute at all. More to the point of our conversation: not all goats are good. (This chapter and the title of the book are a quote from someone the author knew who understood the merciful view of God.)

Matthew 25:31-34,41,46

31 " When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[Teek]

What is the purpose of ordering all things to good?

The glory of God.

People want to reject mercy?

People have a choice. God or…not God. Faith, or disobedience. When you choose sin you reject God, who is Mercy.

 

[Teek]

“Has the Church been wrong in its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage based on the teaching of Jesus Christ for 2000 years?”

Of course not, Teek! It is always a matter of whether or not there was a marriage in the first place. In my own view, if there is not a commitment to love spouse and God unconditionally, then it’s not fully a marriage.

I had provided a quote that explained the Church teaching which has not changed in the 2000 years since Christ taught it.

“That is to say, he who claims that one may enter a new relationship while one’s own lawful wife is still alive is excommunicated because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy. Whoever does make such a claim [is excommunicated]. And he who simply practices it [adultery] is gravely sinning. And then there is added that whoever is conscious of a grave sin may only go to Communion if he previously has done penance, has confessed his sins, and has been absolved. Thus, if someone thinks he can contradict the defined Dogma of a General Council [Council of Trent], then that is indeed quite vehement. Exactly that is what one calls heresy – and that means exclusion from the Church – because one has left the common foundation of Faith.” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller

You replied, “Again, this demonstrates a rubric from a cold bureaucracy. Every case has plenty of complications and differences. Some people are quick to condemn.”

So I replied, “Has the Church been wrong in its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage based on the teaching of Jesus Christ for 2000 years?”

And you said,

Of course not, Teek! It is always a matter of whether or not there was a marriage in the first place. In my own view, if there is not a commitment to love spouse and God unconditionally, then it’s not fully a marriage.

That “cold rubric” does not apply when the marriage is not valid. It applies when the first marriage IS valid, and therefor the second cannot be, and therefor it is adultery. The problem is that exceptions to this are being proposed that are contrary to what the Church has always taught.

It can’t be both ways. It can’t be yes here and no there and both still be truth.

So if the “cold rubric” wasn’t wrong, then it was right. And therefore it is of God, and is, in and of itself, merciful. It guides people out of peril into everlasting life. If they obey.

 

[Teek]

The purpose of law is wholly and completely mercy and care for the individual. When we get stuck in “bend the rule here, and the whole system falls apart”, the individual is lost in the bureaucracy. And when you think about it, the fear of rule-bending is just that, fear.

The purpose of Law is not “wholly and completely mercy and care for the individual.”

It is first and foremost about God and obedience. Our treatment of other people is important because God commands it, not because everything is in service to others’ needs. Our caring for others’ needs is in service to God.

1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. … The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

 

[Teek]

When we get stuck in “bend the rule here, and the whole system falls apart”, the individual is lost in the bureaucracy. And when you think about it, the fear of rule-bending is just that, fear.

Bending a rule is disobedience. It isn’t the whole system that falls apart. It is sin. It is deliberate disobedience. You can only bend a rule when you know it is a rule. That is what Satan did in the garden…surely it won’t hurt to try it… Drastic consequences.

 

[pnewton]

That “cold rubric” does not apply when the marriage is not valid. It applies when the first marriage IS valid, and therefor the second cannot be, and therefor it is adultery. The problem is that exceptions to this are being proposed that are contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Just to be more specific, I do not think exceptions to what adultery means are being proposed. I believe there may be the possibility to exceptions to canon law being proposed in determining whether this is true. Also, it may be that exceptions to communion reception might be proposed, but I am not going there until this is clear. I do not think anyone knows enough yet as to what will happen.

To be clear, even canon law admits some exceptions in other areas of well-established practice. It is not unheard of.

You can only bend a rule when you know it is a rule. That is what Satan did in the garden…surely it won’t hurt to try it… Drastic consequences.

Satan rebelled against God, not rules. If you are referring to moral law, then you are correct. However, we have the whole “The Sabbath was not made for Man” teaching to remind us that any rule we make must be at the service of salvation. One thing I took away from Amoris Laetitia was the need to get away from looking at individuals as categories instead of souls. Canon law is at the service of saving souls. However, there might be times when it simply is not best.

Yet we still have the practice of the Church that must be seen in the light of the Church’s love, not as a set of rules. When people spend most of their life tying it up in the knots of sin, forgiveness is instantly available, but conversion and redirection may take just as long to untie.

 

[Teek]

And when you think about it, the fear of rule-bending is just that, fear.

Fear is the opposite of faith.

The fear of breaking God’s Law is called Reverence (Fear of the Lord). It is one of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Teek]

Of course He told them to sin no more, for sin is alienation, it is harmful to the sinner. Jesus ate with sinners to reverse the alienation, to bring them into the fold.

He told them to sin no more because he wanted them to sin no more.

As far as “people actively choosing sin”, Teek, we must remember that we are all sinners. Do “people who are actively choosing sin” in the circumstances we are talking about truly think that they are sinning? Do they understand the seriousness of the sin? No, Teek, they are seeing the goodness of their relationship, not an evil.

Those factors can diminish the fault but not the fact that there is fault. It is still a sin.

CCC 1955
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

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. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

[Teek]

When we are talking about people trapped in annulment situations, one has to ask “where is the sin?” in many of these cases. When a couple cannot marry in the Church because of bureaucratic limitations, are people so closed-minded to believe that God does not put people together in life-giving relationships in spite of the bureaucracy? Bureaucrats are not perfect, and neither is the system.

It is not bureaucracy. It is a Sacrament! And yes, the Sacrament is necessary to confer Grace. It is the only assurance that we can have. It was entrusted to the Church by Jesus Christ to give Grace. Outside of sacred Matrimony, it is adultery or fornication.

If trusting God’s Church, to whom He entrusted the Sacraments is close-minded, then, yes, people are that close-minded. Catholic people are precisely that close-minded.

No one is trapped in an annulment situation. There is always the choice for celibacy. People are asked to give up their lives to be faithful to God. We are also asked to live for God. Not for our selves.

 

[Teek]

“there would be no Sacrament of Penance.”

I’m not following your reasoning there.

If no one could know they were sinning. No mortal sin, no need for confession.

At the very least, the Church really messed up when it started teaching about mortal and venial sin back in the day…when Jesus taught it. If that is the case, this is not God’s Church and we should all jump ship.

If it IS God’s Church, then what the Church has taught is true, then there is a reason for penance and that is because we sin, and know we are sinning while we do it.

 

[Teek]

Actually, the God you describe is not alien at all. The view you have is foundational, remember? I saw God the way that you do, and it was a life-giving way of seeing Him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are saying, it is all good. For me, His image was expanded when I encountered Him in prayer and reflection.

It seems we are at odds about the existence of mortal sin as an actuality, not a hypothetical. That is an essential to understanding God.

Do you believe anyone goes to Hell?

 

[Teek]

Desire for justice blinds people.

I would say desire for vengeance blinds people, for vengeance is the Lord’s. Vengeance is sinful. Separates you from the Lord. It’s a sin against charity.

But justice is good. Desire for justice is also one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit: Council. Right judgement which is in accord with justice.

 

[OneSheep]

The purpose of Law is not “wholly and completely mercy and care for the individual.”

It is first and foremost about God and obedience. Our treatment of other people is important because God commands it, not because everything is in service to others’ needs. Our caring for others’ needs is in service to God.

Yes, it is “first and foremost” about God, and God incarnate showed us that it He is “first and foremost” about us, You see, as soon as you mention the word “obedience” and the words “because God commands it” the same question is begged. What is the purpose of God’s commands for obedience? His purpose begins with love for us, right Teek? There is no special purpose in the universe for “order”, as much as the scrupulous compulsively want it to be so. Order for its own sake is emptiness, it has no purpose.

Pope Francis, like Jesus, calls us to begin with Love. Everything we do is centered on our love for God and one another, which is essentially spontaneous for the human, but when such spontaneity is somehow inhibited, we have His commands to guide us, beginning with love of God and one another. Everything about what God does, says, and is, begins with Love.

I would say desire for vengeance blinds people, for vengeance is the Lord’s. Vengeance is sinful. Separates you from the Lord. It’s a sin against charity.

Well, the people who hung Jesus wanted justice. Blasphemy was punishable by death. Think about it, Teek. When you see that someone has done something very violent against innocents, are you not compelled to want some ill to fall upon the perpetrator? The line between desire to punish and vengeance is essentially non-existent, and desire to punish is completely tied to the workings of our conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

He [Pope Francis] said priests who abuse are permanently removed from ministry, but are not necessarily dismissed from the clerical state, the Church term for laicisation.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...es-sanctions-against-some-paedophile-priests/

Even pedophile priests are still people, Nigel, and people do reform their ways. We are not to remain in judgment of others, but are called to forgive. In the mean time, I rest assured that they are removed from ministry, and I hope that justice is served.

We can pray for this together…

 

[Nigel7]

We can pray for their salvation, OneSheep. Though keeping them as priest’s of Christ’s Church is absolutely disgusting. They should be defrocked and subject to civil laws.
And we wonder why the mass exodus out of the Church. We wonder why this pedo/homo-clergy problem persists. We wonder why the lack of valid priestly vocations. It’s no wonder, really. Especially with this pedo-apologist mentality that some Catholics (including Pope Francis and yourself) maintain. It’s so bloody misguided and dangerous and careless. You are enablers to monsters.

You believe that we cannot pass judgement on pedophiles? Well, I have no such splinter in my eye, OneSheep, and so I’ll say it like it is.

NO MORE!!

Make me the pope. I’ll clean out that garbage, STAT!

 

[Teek]

Yes, it is “first and foremost” about God, and God incarnate showed us that it He is “first and foremost” about us,

Well, I don’t think we can say that, exactly.

Everything about our existence is about God. That does not mean everything about God’s existence is about us. He loves us, created us, saved us, sactifies us, but that isn’t necessarily everything. It is our everything. It is what has been revealed to us. But it doesn’t have to be His everything.

There is also all of the angels’ history, which we know very little of, which is proof that it isn’t just us. Speculatively speaking.

Just a thought. I doubt you meant it that way.

 

[Teek]

I like how Pope Benedict XVI did it. He was serious about protecting children.

That article sounded bad. There was this one part though, that you can say, “Well, at least there is that.” If it is true, it is at least somewhat better than it could be.

From the article:

“The church official stressed that to his knowledge, none of Francis’ reduced sentences had put children at risk.”

 

[Nigel7]

“The church official stressed that to his knowledge, none of Francis’ reduced sentences had put children at risk.”

That’s not very reassuring to their victims whose lives they’ve destroyed, that “to his knowledge” Francis hadn’t put more children at risk. “Church officials” are too often the problem, and frequently protect the monsters.

We have many wonderful holy bishops and priests in the service of Christ in the Church. There are also far too many that are neither wonderful nor holy.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR MONSTERS AND THOSE WHO PROTECT THEM, BRETHREN! NO MORE!!

 

[OneSheep]

We can pray for their salvation, OneSheep. Though keeping them as priest’s of Christ’s Church is absolutely disgusting.

I’m not sure that a person who has a ministry taken away is still a priest. It sounds like they might be in some kind of situation where they are simply not dumped in the street. Think of some examples, Nigel, perhaps these are very elderly priests who molested long ago.

Especially with this pedo-apologist mentality that some Catholics (including Pope Francis and yourself) maintain

If I say we are to forgive murderers and terrorists am I an “apologist” for them also? You can check my other threads. Their acts are horrible, Nigel. we are still called to forgive them if we hold something against them, right? Do you (still) hold anything against them? I am not saying that these men are not to be brought to justice; forgiveness is not acquittal. There comes a time to forgive.

You believe that we cannot pass judgement on pedophiles? Well, I have no such splinter in my eye, OneSheep, and so I’ll say it like it is.

Well, I had splinters in mine. When it comes down to it, one of the major dysfunctions of pedophiles is that desire (concupiscence) blinds them to the harm they are doing. That blindness results in completely negating the humanity of the children with words like “they want this”; the desire contorts the conscience itself. We are all subject to blindness. For example, as I explained to Teek, desire for justice blinds us.

When we look at the evil someone has done and then think of them as inhuman “monsters”, we are expressing the ramifications of this blindness. When I am looking at any person and seeing a monster, I am blind. My ability to empathize is blocked.

(from the article you linked):

Francis has repeatedly proclaimed “zero tolerance” for abusive priests and in December wrote to the world’s bishops committing to take “all necessary measures” to protect them [children].

But he also recently said he believed sex abusers suffer from a “disease,” a medical term used by defense lawyers to seek mitigating factors in canonical sentences.

 

[pnewton]

They should be defrocked and subject to civil laws.

They are subject to civil laws. That is what the article is about and that is the role of civil authorities. The Church does not imprison anyone. It is the state that punishes crime while the Church is in the business of mercy.

If a convicted child molester is free, it is a judge somewhere that is to blame, not the Pope. Don’t buy into all this anti-Catholic rhetoric.