Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion

[YoungTradCath]

The unborn do not have rights under the Constitution, and they do not have the capacity to make choices, so their “choice” is irrelevant.

It can be argued that forcing women to suffer through unwanted pregnancy and raising children under poor, deprived conditions is morally evil.

Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? Who cares what the Constitution–or any Court’s interpretation of it–says? Raising a civil code to the level of a divine command is ridiculous, and trying to use a Pope’s comments to justify it is, at least on the face of it, perverse.

Ahh, isn’t this the point of Francis? That all of this political activity has turned people off from the Church? If so, how is this practicing the Gospel? How is this loving? How is this a fruit of the Spirit?

So, what do you suggest, that we not vote at all? I don’t quite understand. Or shall we rip ourselves in two and put our “political half” in the “political box” and the “rest of ourselves” in the “faith box?” That is the hypocrisy that produces CINO politicians. It is, in fact, entirely impossible.

What do you suggest is a practice of the Gospel, practically speaking? We humans live the Gospel outwardly, and in part, through practical means: by teaching our children, by performing penance and mortifications, by keeping the precepts of the Church, by performing works of mercy, by setting an example, and yes, also by voting (or by whatever means may apply to the governmental structure of a given place) to more perfectly conform the society at large to the Gospel.

To suggest that voting cannot be part of living out the Gospel is… I don’t know… comically ridiculous. This idea is a kind of dualism.

Amen to this. Yes. People are confusing the USCCB with the Vatican.

No, no one is confusing the USCCB with the Holy See. The USCCB, while clearly not having the same competence, either in degree or in kind, as the Holy See, nevertheless is a very useful tool for the function of the Church in the USA.

The Holy See communicates absolute Church teaching, eg, abortion is evil and must be eradicated. The USCCB communicates the contingent applications of that to the USA, eg: Roe v. Wade is an evil Court decision, Planned Parenthood is a menace to human life, and we are morally compelled as Catholics to, in some way or another, get rid of these things. I’m not following how the USCCB’s commentary is not perfectly conformed to Church teaching here.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Amen to this. Yes. People are confusing the USCCB with the Vatican.

This is coming from the USCCB, and definitely not the Vatican, or the Bible.

Let’s not confuse the USCCB with the Vatican. I find it hard to believe that the USCCB is what Jesus envisioned for his church.

In the same way Jesus stayed away from politics, the Church needs to stay away from politics.

See my other comments to gracepoole. You obviously don’t understand how the Magisterium operates. It is not just “the Vatican.” As far as the Church staying away from politics…absolutely not! Political vehicles are used to make laws, and laws should be based on moral Truth. If you think the Church shouldn’t be involved in moral Truth issues, I don’t understand what your view of the Church is.

 

[gracepoole]

Of course the USCCB isn’t the Vatican. Do you expect the Vatican to give voting guides to everyone, instead of the Bishops of the country?

Nope! I also don’t expect the USCCB to be infallible. Teach me the catechism and permit my informed conscience to do its job. Threatening my soul regarding my voting choices does nothing for me (not that you’ve done this – but some priests *did *during the last election).

Exactly! That is why I think all the anti-conservative comments are hogwash. He didn’t say we should stop emphasizing abortion, traditional marriage, et al from a political perspective. It was a total misreading by liberal Catholics seeking approval for their pro-choice, pro-gay “marriage” approach. I’m glad we agree on that.

We do. I think. I don’t know that it was part of some sort of nefarious plot launched by liberal Catholics, but I don’t believe Pope Francis said anyone should stop work in the areas listed in this thread’s title.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Nope! I also don’t expect the USCCB to be infallible. Teach me the catechism and permit my informed conscience to do its job. Threatening my soul regarding my voting choices does nothing for me (not that you’ve done this – but some priests *did *during the last election).

We do. I think. I don’t know that it was part of some sort of nefarious plot launched by liberal Catholics, but I don’t believe Pope Francis said anyone should stop work in the areas listed in this thread’s title.

EDIT ADD: To be clear, I didn’t mention or allude to any “nefarious plot.” I only commented on the reaction of some liberal Catholics.

 

[matt1985]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

I do believe that pro-life views on abortion are very popular and if the Church wants to do something smart, than it can focus on abortion and ignore issues like gay marriage and minor issues. We can talk women out of having abortions, but we can’t make gay people strait and control who they marry. The Church must not waste political capital on issues where the positions are so unpopular that a huge backlash gets generated. Such out-of-science view points are dangerous for any religion to have in a science based society. We don’t argue that the sun orbits the earth.

 

[SaintAugustine]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

I do believe that pro-life views on abortion are very popular and if the Church wants to do something smart, than it can focus on abortion and ignore issues like gay marriage and minor issues. We can talk women out of having abortions, but we can’t make gay people strait and control who they marry. The Church must not waste political capital on issues where the positions are so unpopular that a huge backlash gets generated. Such out-of-science view points are dangerous for any religion to have in a science based society. We don’t argue that the sun orbits the earth.

Oh brother…

 

[seekerz]

I think you raise an interesting point but that in a sense it’s based on a flawed view.

With all due respect, I think the flaw is in your interpretation of what I have posted.

Of course no individual, in our ‘cult of the individual’ society, is going to do anything based on what anyone tells him or her. “You aren’t the boss of ME”.

That being said, to argue that the gospel message is somehow independent of ‘rules’ or 'do’s and don’ts’ is itself I believe a mistaken view.

(emphasis mine)

Nowhere in my post is that argument made, so your response is based on a misinterpretation. I even gave the example of the horse and cart working together, so I’m not sure where you’re seeing me say they’re independent. There is a distinction between the two, that’s all - there must be a balance of emphasis on either one, and an order of priority in placing that emphasis.

Christ did not say, "Love one another above all and don’t worry about rules until you realize you should love one another’. Christ came among the Jewish people, as a Jewish person, and obeying all the Jewish ‘rules’ which were as important to His message then as they are now. Christ didn’t walk into a world where the ‘cult of the individual’ was being practiced. He came into a tribal world. Different tribes and societies had different rules, but none of those societies was based on upholding a message ‘without rules’.

Who is asking for a society without rules? Not the Pope, not any poster here that I’ve read. All I’m saying is that rules minus living the Gospel = legalism.

The wrong idea (and it’s not yours) is that for many of the ‘average people’ today, including Christians, there is some nebulous idea floating around that “God” (and/or Jesus) was somehow just a cosmic teddy bear all about LOVE, and that ‘rules’ sprang up from MEN. When people do talk about religious rules today, it’s often to try to point out that rules ‘back then’ were different and of course that proved that God wasn’t the one making the rules and if we were REALLY Christian, we wouldn’t NEED rules because we’d do the right thing without ‘needing to be told’. Which is hogwash. Look at many of our ‘mainstream’ Protestant brothers and sisters whose churches have been following the “God is all above love, we are inclusive, rules are man made and changing, the focus is on the MESSAGE” for the last 50 years. Have these churches really reached out to people? Have people flocked in droves because these ‘non rule enforcing but gospel teaching and practicing’ churches have been offering acceptance and non judgment?

If we love God we will keep His commandments, but yes, we do need teaching in those commandments. As for the ‘cosmic teddy bear’ comment…all I can say is that God is love. Man’s concept of what constitutes love, is the problem. I have never seen true love that is devoid of discipline, for example, so I think you’re preaching to the choir here as far as correcting me.

I don’t think so. Look how the membership of these churches has PLUMMETED.

One reason? If God doesn’t judge, if there aren’t any ‘do’s and don’ts’ beyond my own desires, if I can think myself a good person by not actively being a BAD one and that’s all I need, why bother to go to church? Why not ‘be with God’ at home, loving my family, having fun, celebrating life, and not doing bad things? Why have to ‘limit’ myself to a RULE about 'Sunday Church", “Sunday dress”, “Sunday observances”. . .when I can just think ‘nice things’ about other people on my own time as I choose?

Again, I’m not sure what in my post elicited this response.

We can take a look also at our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Here, if you will, are people who indeed focus on the gospel, and living it --they’re out evangelizing, helping each other, etc… . and oh wait. They have more ‘rules’ than a lot of Catholics follow. They don’t just attend a 45 minute Mass on a Sunday; often their services will last 3 hours or more. And then they have Sunday School. Bible study. Youth groups. Service groups. Many of them tithe. They dress plainly. They have ‘rules’ about things like courtship. They have rules about modesty. They have rules about ‘courteous speech’. Etc. etc.

And look at many of their membership lists and see how they are rising.

Why? In some ways, because along WITH the gospel message, they offer practical ways to carry it out --AKA, they give rules as a STRUCTURE (just the way the Catholic Church does) because without a STRUCTURE, people tend to build too high, too low, too flimsily, in the wrong location, etc.

I have no fault to find with the **continued emphasis on reaching out to the poor, and on compassion and understanding, which ALL of our Popes in the 20th century have been modeling. **

Pope Francis is no different from Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul 2 or Pope Paul VI or Pope John 23 or Pope Pius XII, XII, Benedict XV, or St. Pius X in his message of concern for the poor, compassion toward all, and need for the Church to reach out to all people.

Of course Pope Francis is different, as was Pope Benedict, as were their predecessors. That does not make God’s message different. However, we are being called back to give proper emphasis to the Gospel of Christ as opposed to the creeping legalism in some quarters of the Body of Christ. It is not the rules that are the problem - it is the trend of seeking to make them*** the prime focus ***of how we interact with each other and with those outside the Church that is the problem.

Christ did not start, but rather tended to end, His interactions with people by saying “Go and sin no more”. We also need to learn to not make that the initial or primary means by which we seek to introduce or to call back people to Him.

 

[CaliLobo]

Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? Who cares what the Constitution–or any Court’s interpretation of it–says? Raising a civil code to the level of a divine command is ridiculous, and trying to use a Pope’s comments to justify it is, at least on the face of it, perverse.

Our laws come from a secular government. Why should a secular government adopt Catholic teaching in its lawmaking?

So, what do you suggest, that we not vote at all? I don’t quite understand. Or shall we rip ourselves in two and put our “political half” in the “political box” and the “rest of ourselves” in the “faith box?” That is the hypocrisy that produces CINO politicians. It is, in fact, entirely impossible.

What do you suggest is a practice of the Gospel, practically speaking? We humans live the Gospel outwardly, and in part, through practical means: by teaching our children, by performing penance and mortifications, by keeping the precepts of the Church, by performing works of mercy, by setting an example, and yes, also by voting (or by whatever means may apply to the governmental structure of a given place) to more perfectly conform the society at large to the Gospel.

To suggest that voting cannot be part of living out the Gospel is… I don’t know… comically ridiculous.

Catholics can have their voice just like anyone else, but to impose their values on the whole nation is inappropriate. Jesus never used politics as an avenue to preach the Gospel, and changing laws to force others to conform to Catholic morality does nothing to convert people to Christ.

Yes, it is possible to follow Catholic teaching personally, but to govern from a neutral, secular viewpoint. Our government was originally designed to provide freedom of religion for everyone, among other reasons. Therefore, for one sect to impose its values on other constituents is destructive to the original purpose of our government. It also sets bad precedent–what if Muslims want to impose sharia law in America?

Separation of church and state is therefore beneficial for all faiths.

And from an evangelism standpoint, it makes no sense to impose values legally. Once again, changing laws to force others to conform to Catholic morality does nothing to convert people to Christ. All it has done is drive people away from church–Francis’ point. The Bible predated modern democracy, and therefore there is no Bible verse on point as to how to vote.

Therefore, it is entirely possible to live as a Catholic personally, but to be neutral politically, for being neutral politically helps preserve the Church. It ensures the freedom of Catholics to practice their faith and to evangelize.

Furthermore, civil rights from a secular government are, by nature, secular. Therefore what relevance does, or could, the Church infuse into them? It is, therefore, irrelevant what a Christian’s position on abortion and gay marriage rights is, for those rights are secular. There is no one single application of Jesus’ teaching with regard to secular civil rights. It is entirely possible, therefore, that upholding civil rights of gays is compassionate, loving, and Christlike, for to deny them would be to communicate to gays that they are inferior, unworthy of the privileges and benefits of life.

It’s like asking what Jesus thinks of NBA basketball. It’s a secular thing. Who cares?

The only thing relevant in what we do with our lives is one’s relationship with the Lord, and what one’s belief is in who Jesus is. Secular laws and rights are secular. Who cares? Christians are to care about deeper things, in the same way that Jesus fought for our hearts, rather than fight Roman occupation.

SaintAugustine:

No, no one is confusing the USCCB with the Holy See. The USCCB, while clearly not having the same competence, either in degree or in kind, as the Holy See, nevertheless is a very useful tool for the function of the Church in the USA.

The Holy See communicates absolute Church teaching, eg, abortion is evil and must be eradicated. The USCCB communicates the contingent applications of that to the USA, eg: Roe v. Wade is an evil Court decision, Planned Parenthood is a menace to human life, and we are morally compelled as Catholics to, in some way or another, get rid of these things. I’m not following how the USCCB’s commentary is not perfectly conformed to Church teaching here.

It is doing a poor job of communicating the contingent applications of that to the USA by misrepresenting the Vatican, by insinuating that Catholic Americans MUST hold political positions when it is not necessary to do so.

 

[CaliLobo]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

I do believe that pro-life views on abortion are very popular and if the Church wants to do something smart, than it can focus on abortion and ignore issues like gay marriage and minor issues. We can talk women out of having abortions, but we can’t make gay people strait and control who they marry. The Church must not waste political capital on issues where the positions are so unpopular that a huge backlash gets generated. Such out-of-science view points are dangerous for any religion to have in a science based society. We don’t argue that the sun orbits the earth.

 

[SaintAugustine]

It is doing a poor job of communicating the contingent applications of that to the USA by misrepresenting the Vatican, by insinuating that Catholic Americans MUST hold political positions when it is not necessary to do so.

Who has “misrepresented the Vatican?” Are you saying that the Pope is okay with voting pro-choice and/or pro-gay “marriage?” I hope you have something to back that up, because I have never heard a Pope say any such thing.

 

[saveusfromhell]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

same argument can be made for padeophiles

 

[CaliLobo]

Who has “misrepresented the Vatican?” Are you saying that the Pope is okay with voting pro-choice and/or pro-gay “marriage?” I hope you have something to back that up, because I have never heard a Pope say any such thing.

We are now seeing signs of it with Pope Francis.

 

[SaintAugustine]

We are now seeing signs of it with Pope Francis.

Nope…haven’t seen a single statement to that effect. Nice try though…

 

[SaintAugustine]

same argument can be made for padeophiles

Or a host of other disordered desires.

I guess if you are born with a particularly sinful disposition, it means you aren’t sinning.

 

[gracepoole]

EDIT ADD: To be clear, I didn’t mention or allude to any “nefarious plot.” I only commented on the reaction of some liberal Catholics.

Of course. Just me getting colorful late at night when I should be asleep.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Of course. Just me getting colorful late at night when I should be asleep.

I’m right behind you, sister. :yawn:

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed. [cut for space]

But to accept the view of the APA against the view of the Church is practically heretical. Again, who cares what the APA says? The APA also says abortion should be allowed. Does that mean we should accept it? Plenty of psychologists argue that masturbation is great and good and wonderful and everybody should do it. If the APA declares as such, does that magically make it so? Morality is not concerned with correlations and statistical analyses and scatter plots and probabilities and such, but rather with what is right, and psychology itself is far from a cut and dry science.

Our laws come from a secular government. Why should a secular government adopt Catholic teaching in its lawmaking? [cut for space]

Every human on earth is bound and is created to be Catholic (or Jewish before Christ). Voting by its very nature is a declaration: “I declare that this is the way it should be.” To vote for the moral teaching of the Church to become the law is not inappropriate. Voting for and applying laws is not “preaching the Gospel” as such, but rather it is, in the political realm, the final consequence of preaching the Gospel. Bishops and lay Catholics do not lobby against abortion as a way to preach the Gospel; they do it because they were preached to, have been formed in conscience, and are thus applying their faith.

If Muslims want to impose Sharia law in America, then that is bad, because it is wrong (wherever it happens to be at odds with Catholic teaching). One cannot argue that wrong is right. But Catholic moral teaching is always right; it cannot be wrong. I cannot hold the governmental aspirations of a group who lived 240ish years ago above the dictates of my faith. Where they agree, great. Where they do not, faith supersedes in every instance. It is not possible to govern neutrally. That is the biggest farce of American belief. For a person to attempt this is to rip one’s soul in halves and commit one to “this” and the other to “that.” By its very nature, an issue discussed in politics cannot be neutral. A balance can be approached, but it can never be achieved. This is a lie. Eg, if abortion is legal then it is legal, if it is illegal then it is illegal, and if there is no law then it is by default legal; it cannot be “neutral,” ever. The Bible predates plenty of things, but that does not mean it does not apply to them.

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.

 

[fulbert4605]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single. The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times. The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

I do believe that pro-life views on abortion are very popular and if the Church wants to do something smart, than it can focus on abortion and ignore issues like gay marriage and minor issues. We can talk women out of having abortions, but we can’t make gay people strait and control who they marry. The Church must not waste political capital on issues where the positions are so unpopular that a huge backlash gets generated. Such out-of-science view points are dangerous for any religion to have in a science based society. We don’t argue that the sun orbits the earth.

This is one best posts I’ve read in a while.

I used to wonder why, if Catholicism was the Truth and so intrinsically good and Baptism is so great, people don’t go around baptizing random people out in the general public forum more often. Then I read about how the backlash from that would be so great as to ultimately do more damage than it would good (at least from an emotional and physical measurement of things; didn’t take into account potential spiritual good it would be doing). Every organism, large and small, is genetically encoded to fight for its own survival, first and foremost. So also do those organizations such as religion that were created by said organisms and run by said organisms, it stands to reason. There is something to be said for avoiding fighting unwinnable battles, even if fighting the battle is the morally right thing to do in priniciple. The views on homosexuality which the Catholic Church espouses is going largely against public opinion at this point in worldwide human culture. Abortion, however, is a much more winnable fight.

Or is there also something to be said for martyrdom? Will the Catholic Church actually go extinct through martyrdom, uttering her perceived truths even as she is forced to her demise by the global society at large? What do you do, stand on principle and go to an earlier demise, or do you adapt to today’s more and more open-minded, unCatholic society by conceding certain values and getting to stick around on earth a bit longer?

It looks like we are seeing more open-mindedness and concessions from this current Pope. He wants the Church to survive.

 

[josethomas]

Science need not always present the absolute truth. If we learn the development of science and the opinions expressed it can be seen that truth is some thing beyond its control. It is only a systematic and experimental study of nature and not of truth. It yearns towards truth but the truth exposed by science is not absolute.
As regards human nature is concerned Catholics are supposed to be lead by the Bible and not by Science. We believe that there is resurrection for the dead, whether Science will approve such a belief. Our basic belief is that man is made male and female and their unity is called marriage. If science has a contrary opinion it cannot be the opinion of the Church. Let us see if Church holds on to this belief what will happen. It does not mean that Church has the authority to kill or punish people if they follow scientific opinion.But Church has to stand for the revelation of God in Bible and not otherwise.

 

[Brendan]

The Church doesn’t have any credibility on opposing gay marriage because the hierarchy are celibate and single.

And I suppose a Oncologist would not have any credibility on cancer if he\she has never had cancer? Or would an Astro-physicist only have credibility if they had actually been to another star system?? If that is the train of thought that people have, then they are quite mistaken.

The dogmas that say homosexuality are “intrinsically disordered” and “unnatural” don’t have any backing whatsoever in social science in modern times.

They are intrisicically a MORAL disorder. Since when does science define morality?

The APA says gayness isn’t a mental disorder at all. In fact the dogmas against homosexuality may have to change given that science says that gayness is natural. If the argument against gay marriage is “natural law”, than one would say that given that science lends credence to acceptance of gay marriage, it must be allowed.

How exactly can science give credence to a social institution. If it is determined that pedophilia is biological in nature, would that be scientific credence for the acceptance of pedophilia?