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.
With loving correction (i.e. explaining Church teaching and what our response to God should be). Now, I more than realize that it might not be received well, but that is the way it has to be handled. In no way should a priest, and I’m sure Pope Francis would back me up on this, receive the couple into the Church as an active homosexual couple. A complete, contrite confession must be done prior to being received into the Church. There is no way that a person could do so without a commitment to turn away from sin.
Perhaps they are celibate. Perhaps they claim to be celibate. Perhaps they are inactve most of the time. Almost all the time. 99.999% of the time. Then what? And how does the Priest know. We are all sinners. We all misrepresent ourselves sometimes. No one wears badges detailing their sins…

I think 9 out of 10 Priests would allow them into the Church.

Jesus ate with the sinners… the Doctor seeks the sick… we all need love and attention… and support…
 
The Pope didn’t say we shouldn’t focus on the issues of abortion, homosexuality and contraception… He said we should not insist to focus ‘only on’ these issues. In other words, other issues would be ‘in addition to’ these issues.

He said something like… we can’t expect to repent and reform those who feel rejected by the Church if we don’t evangelize them. We need to include them if we want to have a chance to convert (re-convert) them. In fact, we are called to do so.

Intolerance is unacceptable… but… tolerance does not equal acceptance.
 
99th, as far as I am aware absolution of the sin of abortion was reserved to a bishop as an indication of the seriousness of the sin. With the proliferation of abortion among Catholics most if not all bishops have given permission to the parish priest to give absolution for this sin in confession.

As for proof, which you rightly ask for I would look at Canon Law or enter into Google e.g. “absolution for abortion” or something like that. I would do it but I have a lot on my plate at the moment.
 
Perhaps they are celibate. Perhaps they claim to be celibate. Perhaps they are inactve most of the time. Almost all the time. 99.999% of the time. Then what? And how does the Priest know. We are all sinners. We all misrepresent ourselves sometimes. No one wears badges detailing their sins…

I think 9 out of 10 Priests would allow them into the Church.

Jesus ate with the sinners… the Doctor seeks the sick… we all need love and attention… and support…
Why do people always throw out that odd canard? I can’t speak for all priests, but the priests I know wouldn’t accept that if a heterosexual couple were living together. They would tell them they need to live separately. I don’t see why homosexuals would be treated differently. Living chastely with a person you are in love with is too strong a temptation to sin.
 
99th, as far as I am aware absolution of the sin of abortion was reserved to a bishop as an indication of the seriousness of the sin. With the proliferation of abortion among Catholics most if not all bishops have given permission to the parish priest to give absolution for this sin in confession.

As for proof, which you rightly ask for I would look at Canon Law or enter into Google e.g. “absolution for abortion” or something like that. I would do it but I have a lot on my plate at the moment.
I don’t know about Australia, but according to Fr. Vincent Serpa the U.S. bishops have given permission to the priests to absolve the sin of abortion. Here’s the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5305784&postcount=2
 
With loving correction (i.e. explaining Church teaching and what our response to God should be). Now, I more than realize that it might not be received well, but that is the way it has to be handled. In no way should a priest, and I’m sure Pope Francis would back me up on this, receive the couple into the Church as an active homosexual couple. A complete, contrite confession must be done prior to being received into the Church. There is no way that a person could do so without a commitment to turn away from sin.
One, can a gay couple or a divorced and remarried Catholic couple be told that God loves them? Has God not become displeased with their behavior?

Second, is it right to tell them of Jesus without telling them the moral obligations of Jesus?

Third, most people are willing to discuss morals but not religion. They will tell you upfront that they don’t want your beliefs told to them. What then? Stay silent?
 
One, can a gay couple or a divorced and remarried Catholic couple be told that God loves them? Has God not become displeased with their behavior?
Of course God loves them. He may be displeased with their behavior, but He always love them. That, quite frankly, was an odd question.
Second, is it right to tell them of Jesus without telling them the moral obligations of Jesus?
Of course not. Clearly the Pope has not said that we should withhold the Truth. He just wants to make sure we are telling them that Jesus died for them, despite their (and our) sinful nature.
Third, most people are willing to discuss morals but not religion. They will tell you upfront that they don’t want your beliefs told to them. What then? Stay silent?
What? I’m not understanding you there. “Morals but not religion?” How are they separated, exactly?
 
What? I’m not understanding you there. “Morals but not religion?” How are they separated, exactly?
I ignored the other ones because i felt one issue at a time is best.

Morals for some are not related to religion. Atheist believe they are moral people and not many follow the logical conclusion and say they are Nihilist. Even Richard Dawkins will speak morals at times.

But you tell them of Jesus and they will tune you out. How do you deal with that?

I am not criticizing the Holy Father. I just think he either hasn’t revealed the game plan or his game plan is not a very good one that has taken in to account that most non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics are not exactly willing to hear about Jesus. The ones who will be willing are a very small percentage.

(Have you tried posting the comment “Jesus loves you and died for you” in the comments section of an article dealing with morals before you start the discussion? I think its the easiest way to see the reactions)
 
To assert that secular society cannot be touched by Catholic teaching, as if they live in two different universes, is impossible for me to wrap my mind around. Simply, the world cannot be split in half, our souls cannot be split in half, our lives cannot be split in half.

“Civil rights” is an amorphous and imprecise catchphrase. It means nothing unless it is exclusively defined. If we are talking about gay people, then if you mean that they should be protected by the law from things like rape, murder, etc., just as any other citizen, well yes, clearly. If you mean that we should pretend that they can be “married,” then no, that is a lie. Upholding that is evil and therefore sinful or, at best and in a particular case, ignorance.

Who cares? Well yes, if we are talking about speed limits and the color of stop signs and what we are going to make our roads out of and what trees to plant by city hall and where to build the school, yes, who cares? But if we are talking about things that directly involve morality, then the applicable first response is not, “Who cares?” but rather, “Let us reconsider.”

That’s just the thing. Abortion is not a purely secular issue. Gay “marriage” is not just a secular issue. These things have a secular component, but they also have an immense moral component.
You can’t legislate morality. Passing laws does not do anything to affect the morality of a society. People will freely make their choices in life; some moral, some not.

The only way to change people’s behavior, and in turn, their moral choices, is to engage with people directly and show love and concern for them (i.e. to preach the Gospel to them by engaging directly and being concerned with their lives). Much like how Jesus did. In turn, maybe people will make more moral decisions.

But legislating does nothing to improve morality. Look at the ineffectiveness of harsh sentences for drug possession, which is now leading to calls for decriminalization, for example. You can say drug use is immoral, but did drug laws really help?

Another example–look at how banning abortion has only driven women to illegal, underground abortions that are even more dangerous. Abortion bans have done nothing to improve people’s choices. They have only, in turn, put women in graver danger.
 
I ignored the other ones because i felt one issue at a time is best.

Morals for some are not related to religion. Atheist believe they are moral people and not many follow the logical conclusion and say they are Nihilist. Even Richard Dawkins will speak morals at times.

But you tell them of Jesus and they will tune you out. How do you deal with that?
How do I deal with Athiests? I recognize that their morality comes from God, and I explain that to them. Most morality among the non-religious is based on the golden rule, and they will claim that it is based on selfish logic. I show them that that logic is no less valid than the selfish, step-on-others to get ahead, and that the golden rule comes from God. Even if they don’t believe in Him, He is still touching their hearts because they are created in His image. Does that always work? Of course not. 🙂
I am not criticizing the Holy Father. I just think he either hasn’t revealed the game plan or his game plan is not a very good one that has taken in to account that most non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics are not exactly willing to hear about Jesus. The ones who will be willing are a very small percentage.

(Have you tried posting the comment “Jesus loves you and died for you” in the comments section of an article dealing with morals before you start the discussion? I think its the easiest way to see the reactions)
Are you looking for the 100% effective solution? It doesn’t exist. Truth with Love will eventually win out. It did with me. 🙂
 
How do I deal with Athiests? I recognize that their morality comes from God, and I explain that to them. Most morality among the non-religious is based on the golden rule, and they will claim that it is based on selfish logic. I show them that that logic is no less valid than the selfish, step-on-others to get ahead, and that the golden rule comes from God. Even if they don’t believe in Him, He is still touching their hearts because they are created in His image. Does that always work? Of course not. 🙂
Sure. But now you admit you must argue morals first. That was my point.

You cannot just start with “Jesus has saved you”.
Are you looking for the 100% effective solution? It doesn’t exist. Truth with Love will eventually win out. It did with me. 🙂
I am not saying a 100% effective solution. It’s more like how does this solution work.

The current situation we have was not something that happened over night. We first stopped evangelizing because of our ecumenical approach. Then we stopped catechizing morals because we felt it drives people away. Now our inter-religious situation is not one where you can say “Jesus saved you”.

So the people who left were not because they didn’t know there was a doctrine in Christianity that God loves them. You can ask any atheist in North America and Europe and they will tell you that they probably read the Bible, know that Christians claim a Jesus died for them. At that point, you are in a tight spot. They will already speak as if the insistence of Christian morals are backward and products of a man made religion.

If you were to try the non-Catholics Christians, you will be in a tighter spot. They will tell you they already know the good news and it is you that needs to hear it.

If you were to try non-Christian religious, they will tell you they know what you are saying but they got it Vishnu. Or if its Islam, they will tell you you got it wrong.

So essentially, the deadlock condition we see today came about after attempting the very approach that Pope Francis said by some. Yes, few convert to Catholicism but more just leave because they think Christianity is false after being in it. The converts are more faithful for sure but the fact that we loose a lot is also a fact.

What I mean to say is that what if its a fact that not many are going to come in? When do we stop trying and focus our energies on first making sure the inside of the house is in order? How do we strike that balance?

For me, the early Christian community made sure they were Christian on the inside. The rules and disciplines were sharply enacted and if you violated it in a serious way, you were out till you repented. But we are not talking about that here but a more mercy only approach. So what if we suffer internal casualties?

On another note, what if the world outside is full of pride and they just reject Christ? What is the next step? When do we leave the city and wipe off the dust?
**
Note: I agree with the Holy Father that we must be more concerned with evangelizing than moralizing 100%. But, there has to be a method to it. There must be a point at which we say, ok we tried. They reject us. Then build up the groups we gathered, rinse, repeat. Right now it feels like there is no build up. There are faithful Catholics today but we have not seen an epistles of the type of St. Paul or St. Peter instructing to hold fast to the faith in these trying times. Instead we are told times are great and we must be pouncing on the opportunity to evangelize and blamed for not doing enough. **
 
Sure. But now you admit you must argue morals first. That was my point.

You cannot just start with “Jesus has saved you”.

I am not saying a 100% effective solution. It’s more like how does this solution work.

The current situation we have was not something that happened over night. We first stopped evangelizing because of our ecumenical approach. Then we stopped catechizing morals because we felt it drives people away. Now our inter-religious situation is not one where you can say “Jesus saved you”.

So the people who left were not because they didn’t know there was a doctrine in Christianity that God loves them. You can ask any atheist in North America and Europe and they will tell you that they probably read the Bible, know that Christians claim a Jesus died for them. At that point, you are in a tight spot. They will already speak as if the insistence of Christian morals are backward and products of a man made religion.

If you were to try the non-Catholics Christians, you will be in a tighter spot. They will tell you they already know the good news and it is you that needs to hear it.

If you were to try non-Christian religious, they will tell you they know what you are saying but they got it Vishnu. Or if its Islam, they will tell you you got it wrong.

So essentially, the deadlock condition we see today came about after attempting the very approach that Pope Francis said by some. Yes, few convert to Catholicism but more just leave because they think Christianity is false after being in it. The converts are more faithful for sure but the fact that we loose a lot is also a fact.

What I mean to say is that what if its a fact that not many are going to come in? When do we stop trying and focus our energies on first making sure the inside of the house is in order? How do we strike that balance?

For me, the early Christian community made sure they were Christian on the inside. The rules and disciplines were sharply enacted and if you violated it in a serious way, you were out till you repented. But we are not talking about that here but a more mercy only approach. So what if we suffer internal casualties?

On another note, what if the world outside is full of pride and they just reject Christ? What is the next step? When do we leave the city and wipe off the dust?
All great questions. As a former Atheist, all I can say is I’m glad that Christians didn’t take the “leave the city and wipe off the dust approach.”
 
Like the New York Times, I am just so enthused that Pope Francis is so completely different from a theological conservative like Pope Benedict and is such a liberal fresh of breath air, who has turned the Church 180 degrees from Pope Benedict, who was so obsessed with abortion and contraception, and I like how Pope Francis is so Christ-centered instead, and doesn’t think we should let the Church’s focus on gays and abortion and female ordination, uh, detract us from the pastoral mission to…umm…uh…okay, just a minute…
“We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity. I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems. If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us.”
Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of Switzerland, 2006
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html
 
Like the New York Times, I am just so enthused that Pope Francis is so completely different from a theological conservative like Pope Benedict and is such a liberal fresh of breath air, who has turned the Church 180 degrees from Pope Benedict, who was so obsessed with abortion and contraception, and I like how Pope Francis is so Christ-centered instead, and doesn’t think we should let the Church’s focus on gays and abortion and female ordination, uh, detract us from the pastoral mission to…umm…uh…okay, just a minute…

“We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity. I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems. If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us.”

—Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of Switzerland, 2006

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html
Ahh… Repitition is a key to learning…

It is quite a conundrum when secular society is so seemingly diametrically opposed to fundamental Catholic doctrine, primarily out of ignorance (of course I’m genaralizing) yet so unwilling to listen or learn… The Holy Spirit needs to knock some heads… (someone knocked mine)…

On the one hand it’s a great opportunity and on the other hand it’s such a daunting task.
 
And now for the corresponding side of post 168, with gratitude to Arizona Mike for understanding what most posters on several related CAF threads (including one in the TC forum) seem to have missed. 😉

Pope Francis excommunicates pro-gay marriage priest. He’s not the liberal the media wants

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100237450/pope-francis-excommunicates-pro-gay-marriage-priest-hes-not-the-liberal-the-media-thinks/

From all of last week’s headlines saying that the Pope wants to forget this nonsense about abortion and gays, you’d imagine that Germaine Greer had been elected to run the Catholic Church. Actually what the Pope was saying was that he wants the Church to talk more about what it’s for than what it’s against. But that doesn’t mean it won’t still be against those things that contradict its teachings and traditions.
Just ask Greg Reynolds of Melbourne – a priest who appears to have been both defrocked and excommunicated because of his radical views on women clergy and gay marriage. From Australia’s The Age:
The excommunication document – written in Latin and giving no reason – was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church.
The document might give no explicit reason, but the reason is implicit and well understood: Reynolds has offended Mother Church with his politics. It’s interesting to note that the former priest tells The Age that he “wants the same thing as the Pope” which is “to encourage reform and clear need for renewal in the church.” I read from this that Reynolds has, like many liberals, misunderstood Francis’ words. Structural reform is clearly necessary to prevent future horrors like the child abuse scandal, and renewal is something that Christians always desire. But Reynolds would throw out Catholic doctrine – something Francis would never do because he is, despite the best wishes of so many in the media, a Catholic. His treatment of Reynolds proves that point.

And apparently the commenters over in the UK understand better distinctions which the U.S. media and some of their obedient lapdogs fail to see, as shown below. (Comments shortened for space.)
The Bible mentions homosexuality several times, and does allude to abortion also though not so directly. Jesus said that not one dot or dash of the old law would be removed but rather that he had come to fulfill the law.
A true Christian will be always against homosexuality and abortion. If you think otherwise, you don’t know Jesus. That’s why Pope Francis takes it for granted that you know these things … and that he doesn’t have to be forced to spell it out.
When oh WHEN are people going to be reconciled to the fact that the Church is NOT going to change its moral teaching on homosexual behaviour?
It is not going to buckle under the pressure of secular expectations and demands in the media. This is just not going to happen!
People: get used to that idea! Or - “Some people are Catholic: get over it!”
Pope Francis has played the liberal mainstream media beautifully.
Acres and hours of gushing coverage - without the slightest substantial hint from Francis at something he can’t and wouldn’t want to do anyway, which is to meddle with doctrine.
Doctrinal development there has been and always will be, but not doctrinal development that contradicts previous doctrine. That wouldn’t be ‘development’ at all.
In no case – none – has the Church EVER blessed something that is explicitly forbidden to all believers by the New Testament. She can no more bless same-sex pseudogamy than she can deny Christ Himself.
 
And now for the corresponding side of post 168, with gratitude to Arizona Mike for understanding what most posters on several related CAF threads (including one in the TC forum) seem to have missed. 😉

Pope Francis excommunicates pro-gay marriage priest. He’s not the liberal the media wants
A better way of sharing news would be to post the article without attacking other posters. You don’t seem to understand “what most posters on several related CAF threads (including one in the TC forum)” have not missed. 😉
 
The media knows precisely what it’s doing. It does understand Pope Francis - perfectly. They want him to do certain things but he’s not. However, as in the past, they are waiting for any word or phrase that they can take out of context and confuse people, including Catholics, that Pope Francis is changing, or about to change, something. So stick to Catholic news sources. The so-called mainstream media is mostly pagan. They don’t like what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top