Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion

[AdvanceAlways]

FWIW–to go directly to you point–consider Catholic Relief Services, which was subject to an intensive barrage of attacks from pro-life groups, like LifeSiteNews, calling for CRS to be dissolved, over weak and shifting allegations involving CRS and outside non-Catholic groups that may or may not have distributed condoms. After months of this the USCCB stepped in with a robust defense of CRS. But the drumbeat was loud indeed.

The effort to destroy CRS is part of a larger cultural move–making sure that Catholic charities, colleges, schools and so forth stand well apart from anyone that disagrees with them, agrees with them in some but not all ways, or works hand-in-hand with them on something but has some other program or view at variance with Catholic teaching. It’s gotten to the point that a Catholic institution is criticized if it talks to or works with any non-Catholic organization–and, well, not all Catholic ones either.

The Pope is clearly not of this school of thought.

People called out CRS because they were working with groups which were promoting the culture of death, not because they were helping the poor.

 

[YoungTradCath]

FWIW–to go directly to you point–consider Catholic Relief Services, which was subject to an intensive barrage of attacks from pro-life groups, like LifeSiteNews, calling for CRS to be dissolved, over weak and shifting allegations involving CRS and outside non-Catholic groups that may or may not have distributed condoms. These allegations have appeared a number of times on CAF, and convinced many (apparently) not to donate to CRS, and to advocate for its dissolution ( see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=760778&highlight=Catholic+Relief+Services ). After months of this the USCCB stepped in with a robust defense of CRS, pointing out the flimsy nature of the charges and emphasizing the need to engage with the world. But the drumbeat was loud indeed.

But was it true?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Bravo Pope Francis!

Does this shift in tone mean it will filter down to the hierarchy here in the U. S., where they have been far too political from the pulpit, denied the Church’s depth and depravity of the pedophile debacle, and have led an all-out attack against contraception and choice of abortion and the civil rights of homosexuals??

 

[Fevronia]

You are right. And this whole thing is a huge misunderstanding.
He simply did not say that. I’m 99% convinced the whole thing was reported inaccurately. Our view of what was said was influenced by false headlines.
He never said that “the Church” focusses too much on those things. That is nowhere to be found in the article. IMO, he said that the media does that, and he would rather not comment on those things in that venue.

Almost the entire interview is here

americamagazine.org/pope-interview

So I am not sure everything is misquoted.

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

as to what the “necessary things” are is anyone’s guess.

 

[livingwordunity]

You are right. And this whole thing is a huge misunderstanding.
He simply did not say that. I’m 99% convinced the whole thing was reported inaccurately. Our view of what was said was influenced by false headlines. He never said that “the Church” focusses too much on those things. That is nowhere to be found in the article. IMO, he said that the media does that, and he would rather not comment on those things in that venue.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

So, can one become “obsessed” with the poor?

That is a great point. You see topics on poverty as often as you do abortion (far more so frankly - look at some of the prominent forums and the topic titles).

No ever says to stop focusing on the poor. We can walk and chew gum as Catholics. We can conquer evil in many forms, and attempt to eliminate poverty, distortions of holy marriage, the destruction of the family through homosexual (and many other forms of ) propaganda, and abortion.

The things is that the Church’s teachings on how we must view abortion and homosexual marriage is binary. They are always, in every case, 100% unacceptable.

Dealing with the poor is much more nuanced. Both parties in America believe they have the better way to deal with and aid the poor, and we must use our common sense to see which one we believe.

But on the issue of abortion, gay “marriage”, euthanasia, contraceptive mandates, and the like, there is no room for discussion, and the parties have made their platforms pretty clear. Again, speaking for America.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Bravo Pope Francis!

Does this mean it will filter down to the hierarchy here in the U. S., where they have been far too political from the pulpit, denied the Church’s depth and depravity of the pedophile debacle, and have led an all-out attack against contraception and choice of abortion and the gays??

Perhaps you need to read what he has said numerous times. What part of “the Church’s teachings are clear” on those matters can’t you understand?

Keep holding your breath that the Church is ever going to change on those issues. It is a moral impossibility. The constant recurrence of people who salivate with hope that this is even a possibility is predictable and amusing.

 

[opus101]

I truly wish that was the case. From where in the interview did you draw that he was referring to the media?

Well, when I read the article as reported in America Magazine first, the comments come after a question in paragraph 7 under “The Church as Field Hospital”. The reporter asked about divorce/remarriage and same-sex couples. The Holy Father then spoke a while about homosexualtiy in regard to both the proclamation of the Gospel and the individual care for a particular soul.

A bit farther down, he makes the statements that have become controversial, but never did he say that the Church itself focusses too much on those issues. The way I now read it (after struggling to rid myself of the influence of the misleading headline), is that the Pope was saying it is not necessary for him to discuss those same issues with reporters all the time, that he represents the true teaching of the Church, and that is enough. An interview with the Press does not provide the proper context to discuss the issues.

Maybe I’m searching too hard for an explanation, but I’m quite convinced. I hope this is the case.

 

[Allworth]

I am very disappointed with Pope Francis. Every week he continues to make statements that give more ammunition to those that hate the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks with recklessness and imprecise language that leaves room for the enemies of the Church to spin his comments and distort his meaning.

But this time he is dead wrong.

There is NOTHING more important that stopping the slaughter of innocent babies. Nothing. It is a crime that cries out to Heaven for justice.

To say that we must be “balanced” and talk about more than just pro-life, contraception, traditional marriage, etc. issues to ensure the continuance of the Catholic Church is foolishness. The truth is the truth. We don’t need to water it down and restrict it for it to be accepted by those with ears to hear it. The culture of death and its perpetrators must be confronted head on.

Our Lord Jesus Christ told the truth and He didn’t mince words. I only wish Pope Francis had the courage and wisdom to follow His example.

 

[livingwordunity]

I truly wish that was the case. From where in the interview did you draw that he was referring to the media?

I interpret the Pope as telling the media in a polite way to back off with the repeated questioning about homosexuals and abortion. He was being non-confrontational by saying “we” (meaning you and I) instead of “you”. It is a well established communication technique. He was basically telling the reporter, “let’s talk about something else, shall we?”.

 

[Fevronia]

I am very disappointed with Pope Francis. Every week he continues to make statements that give more ammunition to those that hate the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks with recklessness and imprecise language that leaves room for the enemies of the Church to spin his comments and distort his meaning.

But this time he is dead wrong.

There is NOTHING more important that stopping the slaughter of innocent babies. Nothing. It is a crime that cries out to Heaven for justice.

To say that we must be “balanced” and talk about more than just pro-life, contraception, traditional marriage, etc. issues to ensure the continuance of the Catholic Church is foolishness. The truth is the truth. We don’t need to water it down and restrict it for it to be accepted by those with ears to hear it. The culture of death and its perpetrators must be confronted head on.

Our Lord Jesus Christ told the truth and He didn’t mince words. I only wish Pope Francis had the courage and wisdom to follow His example.

He believes in a different approach as he has made it clear.

These are his words

“This motto,” the pope continues, “offers parameters to assume a correct position for discernment, in order to hear the things of God from God’s ‘point of view.’ According to St. Ignatius, great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people. In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension. You can have large projects and implement them by means of a few of the smallest things. Or you can use weak means that are more effective than strong ones, as Paul also said in his First Letter to the Corinthians.

 

[Seaoctopus]

I have volunteered in a Church-sponsored crisis pregnancy center and have seen women from all walks of life. Nearly every one of them is frightened. And not just frightened in a “I’m not ready to be a parent” sort of way, although there is certainly plenty of that. I’ve seen, “I’m afraid I won’t be able to feed my other children. I’m afraid my husband will (literally) kill me when he finds out. I’m afraid of another beating. I’m afraid I’ll lose my job. I’m afraid my parents will kick me out.” And on and on and on.

Lecturing a woman in this kind of situation that she’s a sinner and needs to repent does not make her want to join the ranks of Christian soldiers. She’s come to us in need and instead of showing her why Jesus will give her unconditional love, we shame her. (and when she does have the baby we so adamantly wanted her to have and needs government assistance, she magically morphs into a Welfare Queen that we all feel free to berate and despise.) We sweep her and her child under the rug and comfort ourselves by saying, “it’s her own fault.”

Wow…thank you

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Francis is a refreshing and beautiful breeze. I’ve been so impressed with Francis. It’s been a shock to me. Even my atheist friends admit they LOVE this pope!!

He just may steer the Church into the 21st century after all!

 

[TimSpalding]

I think it might be time for a meta-thread, on how Catholics are reacting to Pope Francis’ various statements.

I see various strategies. One no doubt misrepresents what he said to advance a “liberal”(1) agenda. But far more common here is falling back on:

1. It wasn’t reported right, which is always true about anything like this, but ignores the very real and bracing novelty of Francis’ words. In other words, the newspapers are getting stuff wrong, but they’re getting a lot right too, and Francis is saying some pretty remarkable things.
2. Focusing only on doctrinal content, which are actually pretty meagre, and nothing on the priorities and tone, which are so clearly the heart of what he’s saying.

So, for example, in some sense it couldn’t be clearer what Francis meant by saying he was “a son of the church.” It means he’s not changing doctrine on three hot-button issues. But the rhetoric and tone are significant. The “he’s not changing anything” phrase is tucked away in sentence that aims to make an different main point:

“The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

In other words, he could have said what he said about these issues in much more direct and emphatic ways. In doing so he would have earned a round of applause from those on CAF who seem to think the Pope’s job is to hammer out ringing denunciations of such things all day long. But he didn’t. He said it ISN’T necessary to hammer on these topics, and indeed that doing so distorts and obscures what he calls “the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

===

1. Terribly flattening term, but okay for now

 

[Fevronia]

Wow…thank you

Look, the reason we have all these issues is because there is ZERO prudence on part of parents, priests and others to avoid such things. Our society is promoting these things as good.

I would think the solution is to first make sure we get society to call these thing as BAD.

 

[Fevronia]

I think it might be time for a meta-thread, on how Catholics are reacting to Pope Francis’ various statements.

I see various strategies. One no doubt misrepresents what he said to advance a “liberal”(1) agenda. But far more common here is falling back on:

1. It wasn’t reported right, which is always true about anything like this, but ignores the very real and bracing novelty of Francis’ words. In other words, the newspapers are getting stuff wrong, but they’re getting a lot right too, and Francis is saying some pretty remarkable things.
2. Focusing only on doctrinal content, which are actually pretty meagre, and nothing on the priorities and tone, which are so clearly the heart of what he’s saying.

So, for example, in some sense it couldn’t be clearer what Francis meant by saying he was “a son of the church.” It means he’s not changing doctrine on three hot-button issues. But the rhetoric and tone are significant. The “he’s not changing anything” phrase is tucked away in sentence that aims to make an different main point:

“The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

In other words, he could have said what he said about these issues in much more direct and emphatic ways. In doing so he would have earned a round of applause from those on CAF who seem to think the Pope’s job is to hammer out ringing denunciations of such things all day long. But he didn’t. He said it ISN’T necessary to hammer on these topics, and indeed that doing so distorts and obscures what he calls “the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

===

1. Terribly flattening term, but okay for now

Do you think its a solid pastoral strategy?

 

[opus101]

I am very disappointed with Pope Francis. Every week he continues to make statements that give more ammunition to those that hate the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks with recklessness and imprecise language that leaves room for the enemies of the Church to spin his comments and distort his meaning.

I think that, in his attempt to put a halt to being misquoted by essentially saying “Let’s not always be discussing these few topics all the time”, his attempt backfired and his request was misquoted, resulting in mass confusion.

Please don’t give up on him! No matter what he says, a spin will always be put on his words. This headline was very misleading. It psychologically influenced the reader to misinterpret his words. Quite sneaky.

 

[bekalc]

I am very disappointed with Pope Francis. Every week he continues to make statements that give more ammunition to those that hate the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks with recklessness and imprecise language that leaves room for the enemies of the Church to spin his comments and distort his meaning.

But this time he is dead wrong.

There is NOTHING more important that stopping the slaughter of innocent babies. Nothing. It is a crime that cries out to Heaven for justice.

To say that we must be “balanced” and talk about more than just pro-life, contraception, traditional marriage, etc. issues to ensure the continuance of the Catholic Church is foolishness. The truth is the truth. We don’t need to water it down and restrict it for it to be accepted by those with ears to hear it. The culture of death and its perpetrators must be confronted head on.

Our Lord Jesus Christ told the truth and He didn’t mince words. I only wish Pope Francis had the courage and wisdom to follow His example.

Jesus was actually hardest on the religious leaders/hypocrites. Jesus met people where they were at. He didn’t start out telling the Samaritan woman your a sinner. He met with her and then told her.

I’m as pro life as they come but I myself am horrified by the words so many use. So many people in this country their eyes and hearts are blinded by the truth of abortion! Many of these are good kind people who just don’t see. The key is to introduce them to Jesus and have Jesus open their hearts and their minds, to the truth about the dignity of human life.

When I watch some talk about Obama, for example, I wonder how will we ever even get him to listen to us?

I’m not saying I support Obama, but I’m just saying we need to remember this. The key is to introduce people to Jesus.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think that, in his attempt to put a halt to being miquoted by essentially saying “Let’s not always be discussing these few topics all the time”, his attempt backfired and his request was misquoted, resulting in mass confusion.

Please don’t give up on him! No matter what he says, a spin will always be put on his words. Thise headline was very misleading. It psychologically influenced the reader to misinterpret his words. Quite sneaky.

It often seems that the mainstream media is directly inspired by demonic intelligence. I think that’s how the MSM is so clever and tricky.

 

[Fevronia]

Jesus was actually hardest on the religious leaders/hypocrites. Jesus met people where they were at. He didn’t start out telling the Samaritan woman your a sinner. He met with her and then told her.

I’m as pro life as they come but I myself am horrified by the words so many use. So many people in this country their eyes and hearts are blinded by the truth of abortion! Many of these are good kind people who just don’t see. The key is to introduce them to Jesus and have Jesus open their hearts and their minds, to the truth about the dignity of human life.

When I watch some talk about Obama, for example, I wonder how will we ever even get him to listen to us?

I’m not saying I support Obama, but I’m just saying we need to remember this. The key is to introduce people to Jesus.

Obama already knew Jesus. He thinks Jesus is GOOD with this stuff and wants him to do it.

The Catholic message is so simple. Get Baptize, believe and receive the other sacraments, have a good prayer life, both of these so that you can live a moral life and preach the gospel to others so that they may be saved. Why can’t this be said?

Instead, we get tons of wording that not many people can even understand and the only thing that can be understood suggests some radical things that get make people question if that basic idea is even true.