Pope discusses women in the church, divorce, his own spirituality

[Tomdstone]

If you’ve ever seen an episode of Mad Men, you will know that the 1950s weren’t all that great. All the vices that existed today existed back then.

How many Catholics got marriage annulments in the 50’s ?

 

[kag1982]

How many Catholics got marriage annulments in the 50’s ?

It was difficult for a woman who was in an emotionally or physically abusive relationship to get a civil divorce let alone a Church annulment. But I really don’t think that we want to go back there.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Umm… And weren’t you being as insulting to our current Holy Father by whining that he isn’t catering to more conservative Catholics. And no, I really don’t think that Benedict cared about me or millions of disaffected Catholics who were personally hurt by supposedly good Catholics. In fact, I think that he really enabled the type of people who really hurt me when I was in Catholic school… You know what was nice to hear from Francis during WYD… An apology to those hurt by the Church. (And there are lots…).

And he did want to undo the Vatican II changes in the Mass and thus alienate even more people.

Please cite where I complained that he isn’t catering to conservative Catholics. I simply corrected you when you claimed to know who the Pope speaks to. He speaks to all people.

I really didn’t get any sense of pastoral warmth or concern from Benedict at all like I do from Francis. Benedict seemed very remote and made the office seem even remoter through his actions. I did admire him for resigning but he didn’t seem approachable at all and it felt like he was always condemning people.

Why do you admire him for resigning, because you didn’t care for him? The teachings of the Church condemn sin. If you have an issue with that, then it is with Christ’s teachings and the Church. Pope Benedict didn’t make up new rules for morality in 2005.

And He also cares more for the lost sheep.

No doubt, but the expectation is that the sheep who willingly wander off come back of their own accord. That is the obligation. The Church is always coming home. We can’t stray from the Church and blame her when we die and stand before God because we chose not to come back to her.

I really don’t think that the ornate vestments are coming back and I think Francis’ simpler lifestyle choices (like the Ford Focus) are staying. I also think that the press is going to criticize an successor who isn’t as approachable as Francis. I heard an analyst suggest that Francis has taken the papacy from the House of Windsor to a Scandanavian style monarchy in a hundred days. And Francis isn’t going to contradict Benedict on anything.

You went from saying definitvely he has changed things forever to “I don’t think ornate vestments are coming back.” That’s quite a leap. All Pope’s have different styles in the Pontificate. I respect Pope Franci’s choice of lifestyle as I also respected Pope Benedict’s and Pope John Paul the 2nd’s.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

And priests give up their right to raise a family which is highly important. A lot of the bowing and scraping among priests comes from medieval feudalism where the “peasants” were considered lesser than the clergy. We now live in a democratic world where everyone is considered equal. Time to get rid of class distinctions in the Church, especially since by placing the clergy above the laity, you are saying that women, who cannot be priests, are not equal to men. The only way to change that perception outside of female ordination is by putting the laity on equal footing with the clergy.

No way. I don’t want to be on equal footing with Priests and bishops. I need them to follow Christ in the vein of the Apostles and lead our Church towards Heaven. Theirs is a different calling. Women are equal to men in terms of intrinsic value. Men and women are simply not the same, and to ignore that reality is frankly an issue of pride. There are things my wife does better than ne, and God bless her for being an example for me to follow. I hope she can say the same of me.

We do not, nore have we ever lived in a democratic world. All people are equal in value in God’s eyes, but even a democracy does not eliminate class structures. The opposite is at best a confusing, headless commune, and at worst, anarchy. Luckily, God saw better than that when he created the Church.

I suspect in most cases, this sort of attitude is still rooted in the angst of women not being able to confect the Eucharist. But that is up to God. Tearing down men or the Priesthood in order increase our own self-worth is not a noble of Christian pursuit.
The Church existed for a brief period when there was one man, Peter. The Church has not exited with jusy lay people and no Priesthood. The Priesthood is the only route to truly be with Christ on Earth.

Regardless, he didn’t create an equivalence between the Priesthood and layity per se. He specifically elevated women above Priests and Bishops, for which I can find no theological basis for in Scripture of Church teaching. If you know to what he was referring, please share, because I am always happy to learn.

He said that Mary is more important than the Apostles, which she is.

You can argue all you want that Mary was more important than the Apostles. I don’t take issue with any honors bestowed on the Blesed Mother, because she deserves all of them and more, and was the holiest person in existence. But I simply don’t see the point in ranking central figures in the Church in terms of importance. The could not have existed with Mary. It could not have existed without the Apostles. It is as simple as that. In terms of importance as defined by “a necessity for the existence of the Catholic church,” they were both needed.

I really don’t like being judged and lectured by people seeking to impose their beliefs or condemn others. Such people display similar attitudes in parishes, etc.

I don’t mind these discussions myself, but you are doing exactly what you claim to dislike. There are always people who fail us, but stick to what the Church teaches. It is full of condemnation and love. Both are essentially in getting to Heaven. The condemnation of sinful behavior that prevents us from loving God and one another as we should. Sin and true love are mutually exclusive.

Gosh… Benedict was always getting into trouble… like causing riots in the Middle East. When he spoke at Aparecida, Benedict seemed to endorse colonialism. This wasn’t intended but was the result. I think that Francis is much clearer and more understandable. His homilies are similar to a parish priest’s rather than dense theological tomes. I thought the Aparecida document is incredibly readable. It is clear where Francis is going. I just think that more conservative Catholics are disquieted by Francis’ exploration of the more liberal areas of Catholic teachings and are going through loops to fit him into their worldview.

What loops are they going through? You yourself said he hasn’t said anything that is different from what the Church teaches, as did Benedict. Speaking for myself as a “conservative” (orthodox) Catholic, the teachings of the Church are my worldview.

My question was simply about the basis for choosing the words about Priests and women that he did. You are the one who seems to be reading into what he said, the lasting impacts, what he really meant, the flaws in Benedict, and a myriad of other tangential things that don’t address the original point. I haven’t even speculated as to the Pope’s motives, inner beliefs, or where the Church is headed. By definition, the Church will always be orthodox (or as you say, conservative). Anything beyond that will fall away over time, and we will find ourselevs back to the orthodoxy that Christ founded. People will come and go, but the Church’s teachings are what they are.

 

[onmyknees]

As to the men, it is my belief that it absolutely has to start with the boys. It doesn’t work to suddenly think we must go after the adult men. Unfortunately, a misguided form of feminism that does not respect women either, has persuaded many that there should be no gender-specific programs or roles. Boys, being much more mentally diffuse and immature at any young age than girls, and therefore needing roles and disciplines peculiar to them, are just left to imitate the girls or be on the outside looking in, if they care to look in. Not particularly wanting to follow a model they perceive as feminine, the boys just wander off.

If one wants to know why male church attendance in some places is low, one ought to first count the teenage girls and teenage boys. You’ll see the same ratio as with the adults, or lower on the part of the boys. The opportunity has already been largely missed by the teen years.

So true!

 

[onmyknees]

I think a good place to start is to bring back all male schools. Let boys learn from other boys, and men. Most schools today lean heavily toward girls, with boys seen often as a problem because they do not always act like girls do. I also think, and here I can feel the slams coming my way, that the Church should return the altar server role to boys/men only. Boys tend to want to involve themselves in male activities, and they tend to want to involve themselves in things that they feel they can make a difference in, and the altar server role has always been a means to expose boys and young men to the Priesthood. A large percentage of Priests were altar boys/servers…that is not proof of the need for change, yet it sure does point the way. If we want boys to grow to be involved men, then we need to have them in unique roles and treat them in unique ways in order to foster their growth.

If we want better men, we need to treat men and boys differently than girls and women. It is a simple formula, yet I have my doubts as to whether or not we have the will to make real changes.

I like the idea of bringing back all male schools with men as teachers.

I also have family friends who say that having a good priest friend come over often to their home has inspired many boys to look into the priesthood.

My parish priest is really good with all the children and says things like, “He’s going to be a priest!” He grew up with about 9 or 10 siblings and is right at home with the little ones. After mass in public of course he talks and jokes with the older ones and plays with the little ones.

 

[Tomdstone]

Many people felt alienated by Benedict’s insistence with bringing the Church back to the 1950s and undoing Vatican II.

Wasn’t it Pope Benedict who introduced the Communion service and allowed women to conduct the communion service when there was no priest present? How is this going back to the 50’s?

 

[kag1982]

Wasn’t it Pope Benedict who introduced the Communion service and allowed women to conduct the communion service when there was no priest present? How is this going back to the 50’s?

He also promoted people who were very much against the Ordinary Form of the Mass and also allowed the English Translation of the Mass to be mangled.

 

[kag1982]

Please cite where I complained that he isn’t catering to conservative Catholics. I simply corrected you when you claimed to know who the Pope speaks to. He speaks to all people.

Yes. But he is most concerned about the lost sheep. The last two popes catered exclusively to SuperCatholics and they are baffled that this isn’t continuing.

Why do you admire him for resigning, because you didn’t care for him? The teachings of the Church condemn sin. If you have an issue with that, then it is with Christ’s teachings and the Church. Pope Benedict didn’t make up new rules for morality in 2005.

Popes should retire when they feel they can no longer do the job. This should be an expectation going forward. And yes he didn’t change it, but he did pronounce it in a shrill way. It is very nice that Francis has put a kibosh on the endless sex talk.

No doubt, but the expectation is that the sheep who willingly wander off come back of their own accord. That is the obligation. The Church is always coming home. We can’t stray from the Church and blame her when we die and stand before God because we chose not to come back to her.

This is really contrary to what Francis believes. He feels it is the Church’s obligation to find the lost sheep. He also apologized for the Church’s behavior and many sins at WYD. He basically said that “Jesus is carrying the cross with those alienated by the sins of the Church.” I don’t think that Francis expects people hurt by the actions of the Church over the past years to come wandering back on their own. Really, do you think that abuse victims have an obligation to stay with the Church despite what happened? That is the Church’s fault.

You went from saying definitvely he has changed things forever to “I don’t think ornate vestments are coming back.” That’s quite a leap. All Pope’s have different styles in the Pontificate. I respect Pope Franci’s choice of lifestyle as I also respected Pope Benedict’s and Pope John Paul the 2nd’s.

Francis is modeling a simpler style of the papacy, much closer to the people. It has proven to be popular with the press. The next pope can obviously undo everything. He will also endure press coverage that will make Benedict’s look like a walk in the park.

 

[kag1982]

No way. I don’t want to be on equal footing with Priests and bishops. I need them to follow Christ in the vein of the Apostles and lead our Church towards Heaven. Theirs is a different calling. Women are equal to men in terms of intrinsic value. Men and women are simply not the same, and to ignore that reality is frankly an issue of pride. There are things my wife does better than ne, and God bless her for being an example for me to follow. I hope she can say the same of me.

Priests aren’t extra special snowflakes. They just have a different job in the Church than lay people.

We do not, nore have we ever lived in a democratic world. All people are equal in value in God’s eyes, but even a democracy does not eliminate class structures. The opposite is at best a confusing, headless commune, and at worst, anarchy. Luckily, God saw better than that when he created the Church.

We don’t live in a feudal society where the life you had is the one that you were born into and a whole group of people had a better life by virtue of their birth. We live in a merit based society where worth is based on skill and dedication. It is time for the Church to model this.

I don’t mind these discussions myself, but you are doing exactly what you claim to dislike. There are always people who fail us, but stick to what the Church teaches. It is full of condemnation and love. Both are essentially in getting to Heaven. The condemnation of sinful behavior that prevents us from loving God and one another as we should. Sin and true love are mutually exclusive.

Who am I to judge?-- If the Pope isn’t going to harshly condemn sinners, then I think that the rest of us can try this as well.

What loops are they going through? You yourself said he hasn’t said anything that is different from what the Church teaches, as did Benedict. Speaking for myself as a “conservative” (orthodox) Catholic, the teachings of the Church are my worldview.

I don’t think that they like the fact that Francis is saying nice things about women, gay people, divorcees, etc. I don’t think they like the merciful tone.

My question was simply about the basis for choosing the words about Priests and women that he did. You are the one who seems to be reading into what he said, the lasting impacts, what he really meant, the flaws in Benedict, and a myriad of other tangential things that don’t address the original point. I haven’t even speculated as to the Pope’s motives, inner beliefs, or where the Church is headed. By definition, the Church will always be orthodox (or as you say, conservative). Anything beyond that will fall away over time, and we will find ourselevs back to the orthodoxy that Christ founded. People will come and go, but the Church’s teachings are what they are.

It seems like one of the tactics that is being used by more conservative Catholics is basically inferring that Francis is a country bumpkin who somehow just wandered into the Vatican and needs time to “learn how to be pope.” As well as comparing Francis unfavorably to Benedict. I was just pointing out that outside a small sliver of traditionalists, Francis is considered a quite savvy communicator in contrast with Benedict. And that Benedict said confusing things that were misinterpreted and led to disasters… such as setting off riots in the Muslim world.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He also promoted people who were very much against the Ordinary Form of the Mass and also allowed the English Translation of the Mass to be mangled.

Mangled? How, exactly, was it mangled? Please be specific.

 

[irishpatrick]

Priests aren’t extra special snowflakes. They just have a different job in the Church than lay people.

We don’t live in a feudal society where the life you had is the one that you were born into and a whole group of people had a better life by virtue of their birth. We live in a merit based society where worth is based on skill and dedication. It is time for the Church to model this.

Who am I to judge?-- If the Pope isn’t going to harshly condemn sinners, then I think that the rest of us can try this as well.

I don’t think that they like the fact that Francis is saying nice things about women, gay people, divorcees, etc. I don’t think they like the merciful tone.

It seems like one of the tactics that is being used by more conservative Catholics is basically inferring that Francis is a country bumpkin who somehow just wandered into the Vatican and needs time to “learn how to be pope.” As well as comparing Francis unfavorably to Benedict. I was just pointing out that outside a small sliver of traditionalists, Francis is considered a quite savvy communicator in contrast with Benedict. And that Benedict said confusing things that were misinterpreted and led to disasters… such as setting off riots in the Muslim world.

Respectfully, I wonder, do you have faith in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in choosing each Pope?

Please keep in mind, what seems to many as wrongful or improper statements, are often made for a specific reason (which most of the time we cannot see or know at the time). It is my guess that this is true for all Popes through time…it is likely that they have all made statements that have left the faithful scratching their heads.

BTW, when you make statements here, such as:* I don’t think that they like the fact that Francis is saying nice things… I don’t think they like the merciful tone…*, that is a direct implication that previous Popes did not hold mercy, which is completely false.

I think we all need to pay more attention to what the Pope does, and not so much on the details of what he says (which often can be taken out of context, or suffer poor translations). So far, the Pope has not really changed anything, other than his approach to the people–and everyone has a different style. I think people who think we are going to see sweeping changes in certain areas under this Pope, are going to be disappointed…in the end, every Pope is still Catholic.

BTW, just as a reminder: the USA Cardinals and Bishops, along with Pope Benedict XVI, quite often drove Catholics on the political right to frustration because they made statements in support of certain programs that the right did not like…they also made statements that Catholics on the political left did not like. That is all to be expected because the Church is not about political parties, which means it will cut across the entire spectrum. Therefore, there will be times Pope Francis will say things that Catholics on the political right will love, while Catholics on the political left will not like at all, and of course vice versa.

No political party can claim ownership of the Catholic faith. For example, the Church will always (and has always), remain a champion of the poor, and it will always remain a champion of all human life from natural conception until natural death, and it will always propagate the fullness of truth in all times and all seasons–no matter what agendas people might hold. Truth does not change for any generation or time period–truth remains fixed, always.

 

[kag1982]

Mangled? How, exactly, was it mangled? Please be specific.

The wording is quite clunky… And with your spirit? And let’s not even go there with whatever replaced Lord I am not worthy to receive you…

 

[BillyT926]

The wording is quite clunky… And with your spirit? And let’s not even go there with whatever replaced Lord I am not worthy to receive you…

Well, et cum spirito tuo actually does mean “and with your spirit.” And that’s the words of the Centurion straight from Scripture.

You want a church that conforms to your own wants and desires. That’s not Catholicism. We’re here to be loyal sons and daughters of Mother Church. Not to kvetch about her doing things we don’t like. That’s true for both sides of the spectrum, right and left. The Church isn’t Play Dough to be molded to our own wishes. Believe me, there’s a ton of ecclesial communities out there that will cater to your wishes if that’s what you want.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, et cum spirito tuo actually does mean “and with your spirit.” And that’s the words of the Centurion straight from Scripture.

You want a church that conforms to your own wants and desires. That’s not Catholicism. We’re here to be loyal sons and daughters of Mother Church. Not to kvetch about her doing things we don’t like. That’s true for both sides of the spectrum, right and left. The Church isn’t Play Dough to be molded to our own wishes. Believe me, there’s a ton of ecclesial communities out there that will cater to your wishes if that’s what you want.

Perhaps “Back at’cha Bro” would be more contemporary?

The “Lord I am not worthy…” is right out of Scripture too.

 

[irishpatrick]

kag1982,

Please give the following piece some thought:

*The last formal exhortation to the 115 cardinals who elected Pope Francis in March included reminders of the importance of presenting the Catholic faith in its entirety, the need to recognize the errors of church members and the need for unity within the Catholic community.

Maltese Cardinal Prosper Grech, 87, was too old to vote in the conclave, but the 115 cardinals under age 80 asked him to enter the Sistine Chapel with them March 12 and offer a meditation before they began voting.

The text of the cardinal’s remarks was not released at the time. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the meditation in its Aug. 8 edition.

Cardinal Grech, an Augustinian priest and expert on the fathers of the early church, had told the cardinal electors that he was not there to outline the characteristics needed in a new pope, but to use Scripture to reflect on “what Christ wants from his church.”

First, he said, the church is called to proclaim the kingdom of God and the good news of salvation through Christ.

“The church does this presenting the Gospel without shortcuts, without diluting the word,” he said.

The cardinal warned that too many Catholics erroneously think that baptism and participation in the sacraments are not necessary because the Second Vatican Council recognized the possibility of “salvation even for those outside the church.”

Too many Catholics, he said, do not know the teachings of the church; “not only does an ignorance and lack of care about Catholic doctrine reign,” but also an ignorance of the basics of Christianity itself.

One of the biggest threats Cardinal Grech saw was a threat to the unity of the Catholic community. “Between ultra-traditionalist extremists and ultra-progressive extremists, between priests rebelling against obedience and those who don’t recognize the signs of the times, there always will be the risk of small schisms that not only damage the church, but go against the will of God.”

Many Catholics, he said, seem to think that “progress in the church is based on the degree of freedom given in the area of sexuality.”

As for mandatory celibacy for priests in the Latin-rite church, he said it is true that some church disciplines can change, “but not every change means progress. One must discern if such changes work to increase the holiness of the church or obscure it.”*

patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/08/the-last-words-the-cardinals-heard-before-electing-the-pope/

The call for the Church, and therefore the Pope (any Pope) is to remain faithful to the fullness of truth as Christ has given–the Church and the Pope cannot stray from that mission–not ever. Some Popes are quite personable (Pope Francis), while others are seen as more intellectual and less personable (Pope Benedict XVI), yet they are all Popes and they all carry the same basic mission, though their approach and style almost always differs.