Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdvanceAlways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really liked this statement from Fr. Frank Pavone, the Director of “Priests for Life”. He was with Pope Francis when all the furor over his abortion remarks started, and has some really encouraging things to say:

priestsforlife.org/library/4786-no-the-pope-is-not-diluting-the-anti-abortion-focus-of-the-church

"In his recent interview, he made it clear that the Church should put opposition to abortion “in context.” This is neither new nor unwelcome. The Pope wants to see the renunciation of abortion put in the context of mercy toward the mother, and this is consistent with the pro-life movement’s emphasis on “loving them both.” In fact, in my personal conversations with the Pope, he particularly urged me to go forward with the work of Rachel’s Vineyard, the largest ministry in the world for healing after abortion. He called it an “excellent work.”

The Pope wants the teaching against abortion not to stand alone, as if it were a negotiable moral prohibition, but rather to stand in the context of our teaching about who God is."

…

“This approach radically strengthens the Church’s opposition to abortion, because the Pope is saying not simply that it breaks the Fifth Commandment (“You shall not kill”), but that more fundamentally it breaks the First Commandment (“You shall not have other gods besides me”) and that to disrespect life is to abandon God himself.”

Moderators, I wasn’t sure if this counts as “news”. If not, please move it 🙂
 
Agreed. Another group that does a fantastic job advocating for pregnant women is “Feminists for Life”. This is not a religious group, but many Catholics are involved in it.
 
SaintAugustine said:
So, similar to conservatives who believe that certain welfare programs, tax programs, etc. are more divisive and damaging to society, despite calls from the Bishops to support them?

After a certain point, we have to be careful that we don’t use a false understanding of “primacy of conscience” to allow us free rein to do whatever we want and call it moral, IMO.
Click to expand...
Why do you seem bent on re-interpreting what I say? No, the comparison is not valid at all. Maybe if I opposed any and all legislative measures against abortion on some vague political principle that has nothing to do with religion, it would be. As it stands, I do not.

Here is the thing that really irks me about these debates: the pro-life side is already in the RIGHT, a little intellectual honesty is not going to put anyone who opposes abortion in the wrong. So it really boggles the mind why people see the need for 100% uniformity about every jot and tittle. 🤷
 
seekerz said:
Why do you seem bent on re-interpreting what I say? No, the comparison is not valid at all. Maybe if I opposed any and all legislative measures against abortion on some vague political principle that has nothing to do with religion, it would be. As it stands, I do not.

Here is the thing that really irks me about these debates: the pro-life side is already in the RIGHT, a little intellectual honesty is not going to put anyone who opposes abortion in the wrong. So it really boggles the mind why people see the need for 100% uniformity about every jot and tittle. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sheesh. I didn’t re-interpret what you said, I asked if it was similar. If you don’t think it’s similar, you could have just said so. Why are you so touchy? I thought we were agreeing, but you constantly seem interested in disagreeing and/or picking a fight. No thanks. :cool:
 
This sounds as though HH would prefer to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
 
Is the Pope simply trying to emphasize the forgiveness and mercy that awaits those sinners, or diminish the gravity of those sins? Either the media is twisting his words or his words are stirring up confusion.
 
evener said:
Is the Pope simply trying to emphasize the forgiveness and mercy that awaits those sinners, or diminish the gravity of those sins? Either the media is twisting his words or his words are stirring up confusion.
Click to expand...
The former, not the latter. Even though many people have said he has called for de-emphasis on moral matters such as same-sex “marriage” and abortion, if you look at the paragraph that dealt with this, you will see he said no such thing. The passage was about how to construct a good homily.
I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
Frankly, here in the US, in my personal experience, we have lots of homilies that are lacking in any catechesis or discussion of moral consequences. We don’t have a lot of “fire and brimstone” homilists in parishes I have attended. The Pope is saying that **all three elements ** should be included, with emphasis on God’s love and mercy. But, according to this passage, a homily would be just as faulty if it did not include the catechesis.

(as an aside, I am not sure how to fit this into the post-Vatican II definition of homilies as being centered on the readings of the day)

There are those that are saying that the message is to simply preach God’s love and that, once people come back to Church, the moral message will take care of itself. But that’s not what the Pope said either.

Frankly, there was nothing “instructional” in this interview that was directed at lay people. There was advice and opinion how to be a good confessor (directed to priests and bishops), how to give a good homily (directed to priests, bishops and deacons) and how he would like to see some of the organization changed, including what matters are handled in Rome vs. by the bishops (directed at the curia for the most part). Most of the interview was autobiographical - his experience with the Jesuits, books and artists he admires, etc.
 
seekerz said:
Exactly what I said: how could the words of the Pope - sound teaching based on the Gospel itself - lead people truly wishing to convert to the Catholic faith, AWAY from that desire?
Click to expand...
Okay - I think I misunderstood. What I was thinking is that you were either knocking the Catholic radio station (gasp!) or suggesting something about the alleged presumed waffling listeners… that they were listening for the wrong reasons or something like that.

I was going to say that Catholic radio is a great evangelism tool… and regardless of where one is on their journey… and we’re all on a spiritual journey… I don’t think’s it’s ever a bad idea to listen to it… no matter who you are, what beliefs and values you have, etc. It is a powerful antedote to secular relativism and all other forms of audio media. “To know me is to love me” … certainly applies to Catholic radio and EWTN. That is a big first step…
 
Thanks Corki-
The obvious is that the secularists have gifted the world with those two evil sins made acceptable. Abortions were done through the ages but it was known that a small human being was murdered, that is until now.
Our church must be separate from this world, not try to become part of it. The message as delivered is still confusing to me.
 
evener said:
Thanks Corki-
The obvious is that the secularists have gifted the world with those two evil sins made acceptable. Abortions were done through the ages but it was known that a small human being was murdered, that is until now.
Our church must be separate from this world, not try to become part of it. The message as delivered is still confusing to me.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We must meet the world where it is. We were born in this world and in this time, it’s our responsibility. If you separate yourself and/or the Church from the world (that God created by the way) you are separating yourself from the poor and those that need us and the Church. We are not Gnostics, the world isn’t evil. It was created for us. Like Pope Francis said recently, we must be willing to get our hands dirty. Your hands don’t get dirty unless you go out into the muck.
 
We do disagree, J Peterson-
Should St John the Baptist have made little of Herod’s taking of his brother’s wife?-or kept silent? These evils, abortion, homosexual marriage, and contraception have been deemed acceptable by this world. Who will proclaim the truth, that these are evil, if not our church? How many priests will not speak at all of these evils because of this message? Will our lamp of truth be covered by a basket?
In the U.S. we have the lesson of Father Jenkins at Notre Dame, welcoming our president as speaker in the name of “dialogue.” Obamacare the result? Our church needs to boldly state the truth, or become of no consequence.
 
Even if given the most charitable reading, Pope Francis’s recent interview with Jesuit publications was alarming in its spirit-of-Vatican II liberalism. Catholicism is not a personality cult and so Catholics, following the example of St. Paul, don’t need to ooh and aah over unsound, non-infallible remarks, which were made incidentally to publications like America known principally for their heterodoxy.
Click to expand...
spectator.org/archives/2013/09/25/when-paul-corrected-peter
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
spectator.org/archives/2013/09/25/when-paul-corrected-peter
Click to expand...
I just read this piece. And then I read this:
The reactionaries determined to fuse Catholicism with the Republican right are rightly rattled. But note the pivot. They were only recently the relentless advocates of total obedience to papal authority. Now they’re calling for a mutiny among “laity, clergy, bishops, and particularly powerful cardinals” against the Pope.
Click to expand...
dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/27/the-theocon-panic-ctd/

Hmmm…
 
gracepoole said:
I just read this piece. And then I read this:

dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/27/the-theocon-panic-ctd/

Hmmm…
Click to expand...
It will take a while for the right to adjust to the fact that that he is further left than they’d like… and it will take the left a while to realize he is further right than they think.

In the meantime, they will both overeact and we will jump from thread to blog to interview to twit to yada yada yada trying to interpret it.

The Holy Spirit is engaged.
 
migueltojose said:
It will take a while for the right to adjust to the fact that that he is further left than they’d like… and it will take the left a while to realize he is further right than they think.

In the meantime, they will both overeact and we will jump from thread to blog to interview to twit to yada yada yada trying to interpret it.

The Holy Spirit is engaged.
Click to expand...
Actually, Sullivan’s comments are just the normal, overblown generalizations he always makes. Conservatives on CAF have been pretty consistent (with a few exceptions ) and supportive of the Pope. It is people like Sullivan who are misrepresenting the Pope’s statement.
 
SaintAugustine said:
Actually, Sullivan’s comments are just the normal, overblown generalizations he always makes. Conservatives on CAF have been pretty consistent (with a few exceptions ) and supportive of the Pope. It is people like Sullivan who are misrepresenting the Pope’s statement.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It seems to me that a lot of the support of the Pope has been support in the form of saying that his interview didn’t really say anything notable or different than Benedict or any other pope. Or some people might acknowledge that he does sound different and is emphasizing different things, but water down the actual application of what he said to an extremely vague concept of being “more pastoral”.

In reality what he said was very clear. How to actually apply it is very clear. Focus on Christ’s love and redemption of everyone. The Church does not need to hide or apologize for its positions on important social and moral issues. Make people aware of those positions (and I think everyone, Catholic or not, is very aware by now) but then don’t dwell on them. Get back to talking about Jesus. That is more important than talking about abortion or gay marriage or other social issues. Not just as important. More important.

*The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. *

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.

The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.
 
The interview doesn’t cause me to worry about the Pope at all. But there are 2 questions that I would like to ask the Pope so that I can understand what he means.
  1. What did he mean when he said that the church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules? I am sure we all have our own interpretations of it but I want to know what his is.
  2. When he said that it isn’t necessary to speak about abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods all the time, I would agree with this. However is he talking about the secular media? While that does get discussed here all the time I doubt he is even aware of CAF. I read a comment that Father Frank Pavone of PFL and he had lunch with the Pope and Father Pavone said not to worry about it.
One thing he said that I liked very much was the following paragraph:
“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.
Click to expand...
When I read this it puts to rest the notion that one can vote for a Pro-Abortion President like say Obama because he will help the poor more than his/her opponent.

Consider also that the next day Cardinal Burke went public saying that Pelosi should be denied communion.
 
The Editors: A Landmark Conversation

Reflections on the Papal Interview

America has received a large number of responses to our historic interview with Pope Francis. We will continue to post these responses here in the coming days. Readers are invited to post their own comments below or on our papal interview page.

This is an amazing resource page!

americamagazine.org/papal-responses
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top