Pope condemns abortion as product of 'throwaway culture'

[agnes_therese]

That means that it is worse than I feared! How many people do you think really pay attention to what he said versus what the media reports?

Peace

Tim

Then you’ll only be happy if he says absolutely nothing. But of course, the media would put it’s own spin on that, too. So he can’t talk, and he can’t not talk . . .

 

[SMGS127]

I hope you are right. I wonder, though. If they rejected the teaching before, I suspect that they will continue to do so.

Peace

Tim

I used to be an active lesbian before joining the Church. I had been ignoring a call to the Church my whole life, but I finally gave it a chance. I stopped dating girls within 2 weeks of my first Mass out of love for Christ [though I’m still only attracted to women]. Don’t be so quick to underestimate what the Lord can do with rebellious minds.

 

[Fevronia]

I think he’s taking the approach of:

You know what we teach about morality , now let’s talk about why you don’t trust in Jesus Christ.

There are tons of those who “trust” in Christ but feel that the moral message is not his. Remember the “I love Jesus but I hate Religion/Church” or something like that movement sometime back?

 

[Jon_S_1]

There are tons of those who “trust” in Christ but feel that the moral message is not his. Remember the “I love Jesus but I hate Religion/Church” or something like that movement sometime back?

Those people do not trust in Christ. They trust in what the believe Christ to be. I was one of those people.

The pope can and does through Christ’s church preach the truth. Preaching the true gospel of Christ and bringing people into TRUE AUTHENTIC relationship with him is our mission.

Any movement though from self centered secularism toward God, even if incomplete should be considered a victory all though not a finished victory.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

My two cent contribution: I posted this link to Drudge. Hopefully he’ll at least post this story alongside the other one about not focusing so much on abortion. Maybe people will get a clearer understanding of the message.

 

[Fevronia]

Those people do not trust in Christ. They trust in what the believe Christ to be. I was one of those people.

The pope can and does through Christ’s church preach the truth. Preaching the true gospel of Christ and bringing people into TRUE AUTHENTIC relationship with him is our mission.

Any movement though from self centered secularism toward God, even if incomplete should be considered a victory all though not a finished victory.

I agree. But my point is that without moral instruction, Christ is a shadow of what he is. Because moral instructions and the other faith teachings are what Christ wills us to follow.

The Pope’s policy as I understand is to correct very little but just talk about the love of Christ. So what you have is a larger population of people who do know Christ but don’t really know him as you put it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I agree. But my point is that without moral instruction, Christ is a shadow of what he is. Because moral instructions and the other faith teachings are what Christ wills us to follow.

The Pope’s policy as I understand is to correct very little but just talk about the love of Christ. So what you have is a larger population of people who do know Christ but don’t really know him as you put it.

I think you might be twisting the popes message in the same way the media is just the opposite way.

He never said to stop teaching on morals. He said stop starting with the hot buttons and make people aware if the 90% of the rest of Catholic teaching.

Imagine this. The prostitute walked up to Jesus and starts washing his feet. He tells her “hi sinner you know being a white is wrong why do you continue?”

No he tells her about Gods love and forgiveness and she is moved to comply with Gods will.

That is what the point of all this is.

Not to ignore sinfulness or accept it

But to ignite the fire of Christ in people’s hearts so we can logically share moral principals to an open heart.

I mean look he taught firmly on morals today.

 

[Fevronia]

I think you might be twisting the popes message in the same way the media is just the opposite way.

He never said to stop teaching on morals. He said stop starting with the hot buttons and make people aware if the 90% of the rest of Catholic teaching.

Imagine this. The prostitute walked up to Jesus and starts washing his feet. He tells her “hi sinner you know being a white is wrong why do you continue?”

No he tells her about Gods love and forgiveness and she is moved to comply with Gods will.

That is what the point of all this is.

Not to ignore sinfulness or accept it

But to ignite the fire of Christ in people’s hearts so we can logically share moral principals to an open heart.

I mean look he taught firmly on morals today.

He did teach today but he did also teach what he taught yesterday.

He said
“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.”

(I have pasted this many times in multiple discussions now)

As for the prostitute, she was at his feet repenting. The case here is about simply telling people “God loves you” when they are engaged in all sorts of moral evil. The United Church already does that and there are people in it who think there is nothing wrong with what they do and Jesus approves.

So I fail to see how things will be any different when the Catholic church adopts that pastoral policy of just saying “Jesus loves you”.

 

[StudentMI]

He did teach today but he did also teach what he taught yesterday.

He said
“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.”

(I have pasted this many times in multiple discussions now)

As for the prostitute, she was at his feet repenting. The case here is about simply telling people “God loves you” when they are engaged in all sorts of moral evil. The United Church already does that and there are people in it who think there is nothing wrong with what they do and Jesus approves.

So I fail to see how things will be any different when the Catholic church adopts that pastoral policy.

The decline in Church numbers in Europe occurred long before Vatican II when preaching could be termed ‘stronger’ in tone.

You have several times criticized the popular notion of love as a purely emotional thing, but I wonder if you aren’t looking at love as too much of a purely intellectual thing. What you have said is very cold, to be honest. God loves people even when they are sinning. That’s what Pope Francis wanted to communicate I think.

 

[Jon_S_1]

He did teach today but he did also teach what he taught yesterday.

He said
“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.”

(I have pasted this many times in multiple discussions now)

As for the prostitute, she was at his feet repenting. The case here is about simply telling people “God loves you” when they are engaged in all sorts of moral evil. The United Church already does that and there are people in it who think there is nothing wrong with what they do and Jesus approves.

So I fail to see how things will be any different when the Catholic church adopts that pastoral policy of just saying “Jesus loves you”.

I am not sure you understand what the gospel of Christ is.

The gospel is not saying “Jesus loves you”

It is proclaiming what was taught.

Be baptized for forgiveness if sins

Seek repentance

Enter through the narrow gate

Follow the road less traveled.

Sacrifice your life for others

Love God follow his commands

Confess your sins and pray for one another

Do you not see how presenting these truths encompass the moral issues?

It is the Church as a whole who has divorced these issues in the past so that people see morals as separate from faith.

Pope Francis is remarrying them as they should be.

God Bless him for it!

 

[Fevronia]

I am not sure you understand what the gospel of Christ is.

The gospel is not saying “Jesus loves you”

It is proclaiming what was taught.

Be baptized for forgiveness if sins

Seek repentance

Enter through the narrow gate

Follow the road less traveled.

Sacrifice your life for others

Love God follow his commands

Confess your sins and pray for one another

Do you not see how presenting these truths encompass the moral issues?

It is the Church as a whole who has divorced these issues in the past so that people see morals as separate from faith.

Pope Francis is remarrying them as they should be.

God Bless him for it!

If you honestly feel that is what he said, (which I think is good), then I guess there is no issue. For me, at least after reading it, I get a different impression.

He certainly is not saying gay marriage stuff is ok. But at the same time, he is certainly saying that we do not need to talk about them that much. At least that is what I see when I put together that and the “correct less” part. Couple it together with what he says of Vatican II and I think it makes sense that it is what he wants to do. It is the pastoral approach of Vatican II itself.

I am not comfortable with the approach because I see it as not working for 50 years and having failed the Catholics. Catholics back then knew that to avoid sin as necessary for salvation. That was enough even if they did not know the inner workings. But today what we have is confusion. For some there is no place as hell to begin with.

There are dissidents today as there was yesterday. But what is new is the confusion. That is what you get when you simply emphasize God’s love over other things.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you honestly feel that is what he said, (which I think is good), then I guess there is no issue. For me, at least after reading it, I get a different impression.

He certainly is not saying gay marriage stuff is ok. But at the same time, he is certainly saying that we do not need to talk about them that much. At least that is what I see when I put together that and the “correct less” part. Couple it together with what he says of Vatican II and I think it makes sense that it is what he wants to do. It is the pastoral approach of Vatican II itself.

I am not comfortable with the approach because I see it as not working for 50 years and having failed the Catholics. Catholics back then knew that to avoid sin as necessary for salvation. That was enough even if they did not know the inner workings. But today what we have is confusion. For some there is no place as hell to begin with.

There are dissidents today as there was yesterday. But what is new is the confusion.

You are right that the last 50 years have been bad for the church. Moral relativism has creeped in.

The last couple years since the call for the new evangelization movement, the church is rebounding.

We need a game play change.

The pope is doing that.

Instead of driving through the middle and getting tackled over and over, he decided to pass down the field (football analogy )

I think we should give him the benefit if the doubt and try out his strategy.

 

[Fevronia]

You are right that the last 50 years have been bad for the church. Moral relativism has creeped in.

The last couple years since the call for the new evangelization movement, the church is rebounding.

We need a game play change.

The pope is doing that.

Instead of driving through the middle and getting tackled over and over, he decided to pass down the field (football analogy )

I think we should give him the benefit if the doubt and try out his strategy.

So this is how I have seen it. The reason for the rebound as because we reached a stage where most of the abuses started to get corrected. Pope Benedict XVI was more “traditional” in his pastoral approach. He would say things upfront more often, emphasize the liturgical aspects and so forth.

But now it feels like “lets go back”. He is introducing the same game we played before.

Even though we say the problem is moral relativism creeping in, it infected the Church so well because of the pastoral policy. If one does not take a forceful position on morals, then moral relativism is the end result. Any ambiguity in ones position against/for a moral position becomes an inch for relativism to creep in.

The Church tried what Pope Francis wants. It tried it in over the top ways honestly. Did liturgical innovations. Said that the narrow gate was a hypothetical scenario and everyone is likely saved (likes of Von Balthasar and Rahner). But did it bring in the people? No it did not. They had communion for all sometimes (non-Catholics too). Got rid of preaching on sins from the pulpit.

Still it didn’t help. What makes us think this is any different?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So this is how I have seen it. The reason for the rebound as because we reached a stage where most of the abuses started to get corrected. Pope Benedict XVI was more “traditional” in his pastoral approach. He would say things upfront more often, emphasize the liturgical aspects and so forth.

But now it feels like “lets go back”. He is introducing the same game we played before.

Even though we say the problem is moral relativism creeping in, it infected the Church so well because of the pastoral policy. If one does not take a forceful position on morals, then moral relativism is the end result. Any ambiguity in ones position against/for a moral position becomes an inch for relativism to creep in.

The Church tried what Pope Francis wants. It tried it in over the top ways honestly. Did liturgical innovations. Said that the narrow gate was a hypothetical scenario and everyone is likely saved (likes of Von Balthasar and Rahner). But did it bring in the people? No it did not. They had communion for all sometimes (non-Catholics too). Got rid of preaching on sins from the pulpit.

Still it didn’t help. What makes us think this is any different?

I don’t think pope Francis is saying any of that.

I also don’t think a more traditional liturgy has anything to do with it.

Like I said, morals aren’t going away. He just condemned abortion today, but he’s not going to make that his keynote.

The new evangelization is about heart change.

Not style or liturgy or any if that.

It’s about proper catechesis and engaging the culture and changing hearts.

Check out Fr Barron at wordonfire.org he is an Allstate at putting this into practice. He engages the culture and stands firm on church teaching by giving a wide range of pastoral teaching.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

What about the life of the child of an unwanted pregnancy after the child leaves the womb? In all the focus on the life of the fetus, the life of the child after it is born seems to be unfortunately overlooked too often. Being “pro-life” cannot end with the birth of a child.

 

[SMGS127]

What about the life of the child of an unwanted pregnancy after the child leaves the womb? In all the focus on the life of the fetus, the life of the child after it is born seems to be unfortunately overlooked too often. Being “pro-life” cannot end with the birth of a child.

I agree with you. But it also can’t only be considered post-birth. We must make sure that our children have food and shelter, but we must make sure they aren’t murdered first. There’s a reason one is a greater focus.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What about the life of the child of an unwanted pregnancy after the child leaves the womb? In all the focus on the life of the fetus, the life of the child after it is born seems to be unfortunately overlooked too often. Being “pro-life” cannot end with the birth of a child.

Of course it can’t.

But we don’t go into all the housing projects and slaughter the toddlers or infants. What does their location matter.

 

[onmyknees]

I thought that Pope Francis was really trying to spread mercy and love in the article on the 20th.
Yes, he did say something about not focusing on pro-life and same sex marriage for a while, but I think he is just trying to bring back the fold with loving examples.

However, I am glad that he took a stand yesterday on abortion and euthanasia.

My sister who left the Church years ago told my mom that there were not any changes in the Church teaching so she got what he was saying in the first article much to her dismay, I am sure.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

What about the life of the child of an unwanted pregnancy after the child leaves the womb? In all the focus on the life of the fetus, the life of the child after it is born seems to be unfortunately overlooked too often. Being “pro-life” cannot end with the birth of a child.

There are numerous groups that help care for the children and mothers after birth. Catholic adoption services are likewise some of the largest in the world. There is no group who does more for children or mothers than the Church. The Church just criticized the reduction in the SNAP program. The remain firmly committed to being pro-life throughout life. The notion that pro-life people do not care about the child after birth is a tired, long worn out cliche. Surely you don’t think it is true, do you?

 

[Brendan_64]

What about the life of the child of an unwanted pregnancy after the child leaves the womb? In all the focus on the life of the fetus, the life of the child after it is born seems to be unfortunately overlooked too often. Being “pro-life” cannot end with the birth of a child.

Of course not.

However taking a view that the quality of life of a child would make it better that they had never been born, and therefore killing the child before it even has a chance of being born, often simply because it is not wanted by the parents, shows no regard at all for the rights of that child and make the wishes of the mother more important than the life of a child. Abortion is not about preventing a particular life from occurring, it is about destroying the life of an innocent individual that has already begun.