Pope explains why he is going to Assisi-III

[baylee]

ISo many Christians have lost their lives because they refused to accept other religions. And now we are betraying our faith and those who died for it by making everything so acceptable and relative, because we are sophisticated people of the 21st century.

This is where I’m at right now. I can’t imagine any of our martyrs in faith giving any credence to any other religion. It’s been hard for me as a post Vatican II convert, but the more I read about our faith prior to Vatican II, the more issues I’m having here.

 

[JReducation]

This is where I’m at right now. I can’t imagine any of our martyrs in faith giving any credence to any other religion. It’s been hard for me as a post Vatican II convert, but the more I read about our faith prior to Vatican II, the more issues I’m having here.

If we think about martyrdom, this would not really be applicable here. Our martyrs died for one of the following reasons:

1. Refused to recant on their faith.
2. Considered criminals for preaching the faith, as was often the case in Asia.
3. Were suspect of evil, because of their practice of the faith, as was with the martyrs in North America
4. Stood up for social justice and the dignity of human life, as did Miguel Pro and Maximilian Kolbe

The Holy Father is not recanting on his faith or the faith of the Church.

No one is accusing him of being a criminal for being Catholic. In fact, the non-Catholics are visiting one of the most Catholic cities in the world.

He is not suspect of evil because he is Catholic.

There is no injustice against human or religious rights being committed at this event. The Holy Father is trying to get these leaders to commit their people in the fight against such injustice.

Given that the martyrs were men and women who were a product of their time and many of them lived in a time when there was much antagonism between Catholics and non-Catholics, this kind of activity would be unthinkable to them; but that does not make it wrong. Francis of Assisi thought that riding horses was scandalous. In his day and age, it was scandalous. Dominic thought that women religious doing catechesis was heresy. Therefore, after he founded the Dominican nuns, he founded the friars to do this work. The nuns remained in the cloister praying for the Brother Preachers.

Fastforward the clock, today the situation is different. The antagonism seems to be more between faith of any kind and political factions. Even pagans are being attacked by those with political agendas. Look at Tibet. Look at what Radical Islamic rebels do to their own people. Look at what our Christian and at times Catholic leaders do to the Christian and Catholic faith right here in the USA. We have a political movement that is systematically attacking the rights of Catholics to be Catholic.

To the martyrs, our current situation would be very strange, especially our situation in the USA, Catholics antagonistic toward Catholicism was unheard of to them. The only martyrs that I can think who would understand the current situation would be Edith Stein and Maximilian Kolbe.

On the flip side, we have saintly people who did stand side by side with people of other faiths for prayer and for peace and who did and do a great deal of good and exercise a great deal of influence. Look at Bl. Mother Teresa. There are thousands of people, Indian and non Indian, who attribute their conversion to her example.

Look at the Missionaries of the Poor. They have brought many people into the faith without ever saying a single word. They simply go out and pray, work and serve along with people of other faiths.

Look at the Franciscans in the Middle East. They have been successful missionaries for 800 years. Since 1223, they have been there. They have prayed with Muslims and Jews. They have never uttered a single word against Islam or Judaism. They have built schools, family centers, dispensaries and other organizations and institutions that serve Muslims, Jews and Christians. One of the most impressive reports that comes out of the region is that in the communities where the Franciscans are present, the local people live in peace while they retain the faith. These seem to be the only communities where there is no conflict. They seem to get caught in the crossfire. Just a few years ago, Pope Benedict gave his blessing to the first Catholic University in Jordan, which is going to be a joint venture between Muslims and Catholics… The Franciscans from the Custody, I believe it’s Pallotines, and Muslim scholars are going to run it. They currently run the only integrated school for the disabled in Jordan.

Those who used the “in your face” method have never had such success. Those who have been very non-threatening and non-confrontational, such as was St. Maximmilian Kolbe in Japan, Mother Teresa in India, the Franciscans in the Holy Land and the Missionaries of the Poor in the Caribbean, have met with great success.

We don’t hear much about it, but it’s there. In some countries you can’t speak much about it, because it’s illegal to be a card-carrying Christian. Also, success is like a tree. I grows while you’re not looking. You can’t alwasy see success as it’s happening, just as you can’t see the tree growing if you stand there and stare at it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Blessed_be_God]

I specifically signed up to CAF after reading this thread

First off, I see two different views presented by Br. JR and the other by AntiqueCatholic. I can identify and understand each person’s position.

But I do see more merit in the concern raised by AntiqueCatholic.

My question to Br. JR and others who support the position is

At a time where most Catholics are
a) Not Catechized properly
b) Struggling with relativism and indifferentism
is it prudent to attend an event that does hint toward indifferentism?

I understand that the reply so far has been that “We must trust in the Holy Father”.

While I completely agree with infallibility of the church on matters of teaching on faith and morals, the Pope’s decision to attend Assisi or hold such an event is not a teaching. I also cannot see how a Catholic could claim infallibility of a Pope in such actions.

History has shown many Popes who ended up making erroneous judgement calls on the correct action to take. The example of the implementation of indulgences that lead to the reformation would highlight this point clearly. There were also popes in history that I am sure you would agree did not just take imprudent actions but immoral actions like some of the Renaissance Popes.

So I do not think that “We must trust in the Holy Father” is actually a valid defense.

In this case, it does appear that the Pope’s actions are scandalizing. At the very least, his actions are imprudent given the time we live in.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think the Catholic teaching on Ecumenism is something we must all give full assent to. But the execution/implementation of the teaching in to action by the current Pope or Pope’s before him are certainly questionable and are not protected by infallibility.

So just as one should have opposed the abuse of indulgences back in the reformation, I think all Catholics, whether they are lay or belong to an order, should voice their concerns to the Pope or Vatican, no?

When we turn to the history of the church, we see many martyrs who shed their blood for the sole reason of not refusing to acknowledge other pagan God’s and religions. We see missionaries like St. Francis Xavier who went to great lengths of missionary service to convert people to Catholicism and laid down their lives. So is the claim today that the martyrdom of these great saints stemmed from their lack of love for peace between religions?

On more simpler level, we have a religion like Islam that promotes the practice of Polygamy. When a Pope claims that the God of Islam is the same God of Christianity, it clearly suggests that even these moral values and teachings of Islam are fair game. If the Pope added “but Islam is a distortion of the truth that the one God has revealed through Jesus Christ”, then of course it would be clearer. But a statement that “God of Islam and God of Christianity are the same” by it-self does hint toward religious indifferentism. So who can blame the Catholic or non-Catholic that feels that the church has finally accepted religious indifferentism or a form of relativism?

 

[JReducation]

You have interesting points here that deserve an appropriate response. Let’s see if I can be helpful.

At a time where most Catholics are
a) Not Catechized properly
b) Struggling with relativism and indifferentism
is it prudent to attend an event that does hint toward indifferentism?

The Holy See is always making prudential judgments. Most of Catholicism is based on prudential judgments. If we were to put on paper only what is covered under the umbrella of infallibility we could cover it all in 50 pages.

However, we assent to prudential judgments as well as infallible statements, out of obedience, respect and trust.

Yes, this is a time when most Catholics in Europe and North America are very poorly catechized. From the point of view of the Vatican, the long-term benefits outweigh the drawbacks. That really is their call to make. We have no right to interfere in that call, because they see the universal Church and the secular world in one big picture, while we see fragments of it.

While I completely agree with infallibility of the church on matters of teaching on faith and morals, the Pope’s decision to attend Assisi or hold such an event is not a teaching. I also cannot see how a Catholic could claim infallibility of a Pope in such actions.

No one has claimed that it’s an infallible action. That needs to be clarified. It may work or it may not. The goal is to motivate these leaders, who have an influence over their people, to go home and work for peace. The purpose of this gathering is not to catechize anyone. This is really a peace gathering.

So I do not think that “We must trust in the Holy Father” is actually a valid defense.

It is valid for two reasons.

First, this is a pope who has never given the Church any reason not to trust him. Since his youth to this day, he has made significant contributions to the Church at every post he has ever held. He is more intelligent than most Catholics put together. He has a plan in mind that he is not sharing with all of us and he does not have to share with us. The Church does not owe us transparency. It’s a theocracy. We have to trust that a person like Pope Benedict, with a proven track record knows what he’s doing. This is not gurantee that he’s going to achieve the desired result. Even he does not know this. He only believes that this is worth trying and he knows why he believes this, but he has made it clear that he does not want to share it with us. We have to leave it at that. We can’t handcuff the pope.

Second, it makes no sense not to trust the man whom we call call Father. Unless he’s an abusive father, what sense is there in not trusting? If we don’t trust him, then let’s drop the act and stop calling him Father. Remember, we don’t call him Father, because he’s a priest. We call him Father because he is the temporal father of the Church.

In this case, it does appear that the Pope’s actions are scandalizing. At the very least, his actions are imprudent given the time we live in.

It appears that way to some, not to everyone.

So just as one should have opposed the abuse of indulgences back in the reformation, I think all Catholics, whether they are lay or belong to an order, should voice their concerns to the Pope or Vatican, no?

Canon law says that Catholics may voice their concerns and the bishops have a duty to listen. It does not say that they have a duty to act according to those concerns. They can listen and proceed as planned. The Holy Father is aware of these concerns. He has responded to the concerns by explaining why he’s going to Assisi and how he plans to handle the situation. Once that happens, there is no canonical recourse. In other words, Canon Law does not support the continuation of the expression of concern. The concerns have been expressed. The pope has responded to them. The conversation is over. Canon Law makes this very clear.

Catholics can post these concerns on the internet from now to eternity and neither God nor pope is interested in them, because Peter has spoken. He does not need to invoke in fallibility to end a conversation. He is still Peter and as Peter, he can simply say that there is no more to discuss and we must obey. We don’t obey, because it’s an infallible statement. We obey out of respect for the office.

 

[JReducation]

As regards to those who belong to religious orders, which you mention in your comment, the answer is categorically, NO. While it is true that there are priests, brothers and sisters who run their mouths, it is not their right to do so. Religious have no right to question authority even on prudential matters.

For example: this gathering is taking place at the Motherhouse of the Franciscan Family. This house is the founding house of 1.7 million men and women Franciscans. That’s a big group of Catholics. If this group dares to question the use of our motherhouse for this event, which has been requested by a pope, the rule of Francis is very explicit, you automatically commit a mortal sin against the vow of obedience and the vow of poverty. Therefore, you have violated two vows and the consequences can be anything from a penance to an excommunication, depending on how far you carry it. There are two people that no Franciscan may ever question: Francis and the reigning pope.

However, Franciscans are not the only religious who are bound to obey. Franciscans may not question. Others may question, but once they get an answer, they must accept that answer and drop the matter.

No religious may ever say “No” to a pope. Diocesan priests, even though they are not religious, may not say no. They have a little more wiggle room when it comes to disagreement, because they don’t make a vow of obedience. They promise to obey their bishop. If their bishop orders them to be silent, they must comply. Not to do so can result in suspension of faculties. It’s at the bishop’s discretion.

Please, do not encourage religious and clergy to respond in kind as if we were lay people. We’re not the laity. We gave up those freedoms. To attempt to use what we freely gave up is a grave sin. It would be like saying, “I know that I gave up having material possessions, but my mother is paying for my new car, not me.” No, it does not work that way. You may not own the car. Mom has no right to give you a car, because he has not right to give a car to someone who has not right to own a car.

You can’t give a voice or an opinion to someone who has not right to have a voice or an opinion. You’re asking religious to align themselves with the laity on this one. Any religious who does so, commits a very serious mortal sin against obedience and poverty. A religious must obey and we do own ourselves. We submit to those who are better than us. The pope is certainly better than we are.

When we turn to the history of the church, we see many martyrs who shed their blood for the sole reason of not refusing to acknowledge other pagan God’s and religions. We see missionaries like St. Francis Xavier who went to great lengths of missionary service to convert people to Catholicism and laid down their lives. So is the claim today that the martyrdom of these great saints stemmed from their lack of love for peace between religions?

I spoke to the martyr question in a post above.

On more simpler level, we have a religion like Islam that promotes the practice of Polygamy. When a Pope claims that the God of Islam is the same God of Christianity, it clearly suggests that even these moral values and teachings of Islam are fair game.

The God of Islam is the God of Israel and the God of Jesus Christ. The nature of God does not change, because people misunderstand him and his revealed truth or because they don’t have all of it.

The Church has explained, many times, the problems with Islam’s understanding of God. The problem is not that they have a false God. The problem is that they understand part of the whole. The Church has explained what parts they get right and which parts they are missing.

Read Crossing the Threshold of Hope. It’s all in there, very clearly stated and very politely. The problem is that people want the pope to make these comments to these people’s faces. That’s not going to happen. Popes are very knowledgeable of Church and world history. They know what worked in the past and what did not. In your face, never worked.

This is why Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are following St. Francis’ lead. Francis’ method works. Even the great Francis Xavier finally wrote a long letter to Ignatius advicing him that he was going to change his method and adopt that of the Franciscans, because his method was not working. He was making little progress. Once he did this, he began to make great progress. Look at a modern Franciscan missionary, Maximilian Kolbe. Maximilian introduced the Immaculate Conception to Japanese culture by changing the name. The Japanese would not buy into the Immaculate Conception, bu they bought into the Sinless Mother. He introduced her this way and called his ministry by this name. The end result? The largest Catholic diocese in Japan owes its vocations to Maximilian Kolbe. The bishop hired him to found the secular seminary, which is still standing and is still full.

In India, the Portuguese Jesuits failed miserably. The only Indian State that became Catholic was the one where the Franciscans were present. The friars restored the rite that was given to them by St. Thomas and they established a working relationship with Hindus and Muslims. Mother Teresa adopted the same approach and look at her success. We don’t have a religious community in Europe or the USA than can compete in numbers and in converts with the Missionaries of Charity.

Sometimes, a change of approach is helpful. And if it does not work, then you try something different later. As Mother Teresa said, “God does not judge you on success, but on effort.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Thank you Br. JR for your kind and detailed reply.

However, I find issue with the following.

The Holy See is always making prudential judgments. Most of Catholicism is based on prudential judgments. If we were to put on paper only what is covered under the umbrella of infallibility we could cover it all in 50 pages.

However, we assent to prudential judgments as well as infallible statements, out of obedience, respect and trust.

I am not sure that is correct. Is there a canon which states as such?

In my understanding, Catholic teaching is based on Scripture and Tradition. Not prudential judgements. It would be very easy to take the 2000 years of Catholic church’s history and show very imprudent judgement calls on part of the Pope’s and Bishops.

Because you see, the teachings of the church are to be given full assent to and may not be questioned. BUT, this cannot extend to actions. If it could extend to actions, then while a Pope might act in questionable ways, the faithful will have to give full assent to him.

I am not sure such a view is correct?

We have no right to interfere in that call, because they see the universal Church and the secular world in one big picture, while we see fragments of it.

I am again not sure where this is from.

Because you see, the right I would be exercising in letting the Pope know that something is scandalous in his actions would be similar to me informing a Catholic who is engaging in questionable decisions that they are imprudent.

The Pope, Bishops and other Clergy are all fallible human beings when it comes to actions. Is that not true?

First, this is a pope who has never given the Church any reason not to trust him. Since his youth to this day, he has made significant contributions to the Church at every post he has ever held. He is more intelligent than most Catholics put together…

I am not sure that this matters.

One leading a life free from sin up to a certain point does not protect them from not making a sinful or erroneous judgement call.

So I agree with you that the Holy father has the best intentions. But I think it is somewhat clear to many that his implementation is indeed questionable.

As for intelligence, many intelligent people make grave errors of judgement due to influence of environment. Unless the Pope is the only intelligent person alive, you would surely agree that this doesn’t help justify whether his actions are right?

Because if the concerns expressed here are valid, then the Pope’s actions are indeed scandalous regardless of his intelligence, right?

Second, it makes no sense not to trust the man whom we call call Father. Unless he’s an abusive father, what sense is there in not trusting?

But the problem here is that under your view, any abusive father is a good father. Because when the father abuses, one may make the argument that ‘since he has not done anything to suspect him, his actions must be good and well thought out. Who are we to suspect our father’?

So even when there is abuse, it would have to be seen as a well thought out measure for long term benefits i.e. not abuse. no?

Once that happens, there is no canonical recourse. In other words, Canon Law does not support the continuation of the expression of concern. The concerns have been expressed. The pope has responded to them. The conversation is over. Canon Law makes this very clear.

Catholics can post these concerns on the internet from now to eternity and neither God nor pope is interested in them, because Peter has spoken.

I agree that there is no point to us posting this online.

But it helps to know when Peter is wrong Remember how St. Paul had to complain to St. Peter when he wasn’t eating with Pagan converts?

I think, in this case, it seems to indicate something just as wrong with the papal actions. He may not listen and he may think that what he is doing is right. But it does not reduce the fact that it is confusing to many Catholics.

The Pope’s decision may be final. But the concerns are valid and any Catholic is right in refusing to agree with his actions.

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Please, do not encourage religious and clergy to respond in kind as if we were lay people. We’re not the laity. We gave up those freedoms. To attempt to use what we freely gave up is a grave sin.

I understand. I was a bit confused on how St. Paul said “no” and complained to St. Peter in acts then though when he was not eating with Jews. Is such disobedience also not allowed?

The God of Islam is the God of Israel and the God of Jesus Christ. The nature of God does not change, because people misunderstand him and his revealed truth or because they don’t have all of it.

I don’t think any one is concerned about the parts they don’t have though. I would think people are more concerned about the extra parts they have like the allowance for Polygamy.

I also don’t think the concern is not that the Pope doesn’t outwardly condemn Islam. The issue is that when the Pope could stay silent, he instead chooses to hold events where he would be put in to situations where he has to say half truths.

The problem is increased in that these half truths can cause scandal to the faithful.

I think that is more the concern.

Even the great Francis Xavier finally wrote a long letter to Ignatius advicing him that he was going to change his method and adopt that of the Franciscans, because his method was not working. In India, the Portuguese Jesuits failed miserably.

Are you sure that this is accurate and even if it were, it wasn’t just St. Xavier giving in to some physical tiredness? Sort of like a fleeting feeling he had?

Because his work was certainly fruitful in India and it shows to this day. As far my knowledge on his methods go, they were pretty strict. At times he even asked people destroy the statues of their pagan deities. Places like Goa in India would not have been Catholic if not for his work.

You also seem to suggest that St. Xavier really gave up his life for nothing. He should have just tried a more ‘diplomatic’ way instead of trying to sneak in to countries and preach Catholicism in places where it was not allowed.

So this extends back to your reply on martydom. What you said missed the point that most martyrs ended up being martyred because they tried to illegally get in to countries where preaching was not allowed and tried to preach to the people.

They definitely didn’t go there to get together with the religious in those countries to pray together to their respective deities, right?

So either they gave up their lives due to a bad misconception that they should try to convert these people (in which case it was really a waste) or they actually did something good (worthy of the title martyr). Which is it?

 

[G_Inquisitor]

One leading a life free from sin up to a certain point does not protect them from not making a sinful or erroneous judgement call. … As for intelligence, many intelligent people make grave errors of judgement due to influence of environment.

Who was more intelligent than Solomon?

“And king Solomon loved many strange women… of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel: You shall not go in unto them, neither shall any of them come in to yours, for they will most certainly turn your heart away to follow their gods. And to these Solomon joined with a most ardent love. And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and thee hundred concubines: and the women turned away his heart. … And Solomon did that which was not pleasing before the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as David his father. ** Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch the idol of the children of Ammon. And he did in this manner for all his wives… and burnt incense, and offered sacrifices to their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon**… And the Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precept which I have commanded thee, I will divide thy kingdom.” (3 Kings 11:1-11)

In the Old Testament, there are many examples of religious leaders mingling with false religions… and it is always condemned. In the above case, God was so angry that he divided the Kinddom.

False worship is a mortal sin against the first Commandment. Every Catholic must affirm that sanctioning, or encouraging, false worship is bad, just as it would be bad for someone to encourage another to break the 5th Commandment by an act of murder. In fact, violations of the first Commandment (such as false worship) are, by their nature, worse than violations of the other nine commandments.

During the first Assisi meeting in 1986, a Voodoo Witch doctor sacrificed chickens on the high altar of the St. Clare’s Church. If you look up “abomination of desolation” in the old Testament, it always consisted of a similar act - some kind of pagan sacrifice taking place on the Jewish altar. Every Catholic is bound, by the promises made at his baptism, to reject any such acts.

 

[Denise1957]

Who was more intelligent than Solomon?

“And king Solomon loved many strange women… of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel: You shall not go in unto them, neither shall any of them come in to yours, for they will most certainly turn your heart away to follow their gods. And to these Solomon joined with a most ardent love. And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and thee hundred concubines: and the women turned away his heart. … And Solomon did that which was not pleasing before the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as David his father. ** Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch the idol of the children of Ammon. And he did in this manner for all his wives… and burnt incense, and offered sacrifices to their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon**… And the Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precept which I have commanded thee, I will divide thy kingdom.” (3 Kings 11:1-11)

In the Old Testament, there are many examples of religious leaders mingling with false religions… and it is always condemned. In the above case, God was so angry that he divided the Kinddom.

False worship is a mortal sin against the first Commandment. Every Catholic must affirm that sanctioning, or encouraging, false worship is bad, just as it would be bad for someone to encourage another to break the 5th Commandment by an act of murder. In fact, violations of the first Commandment (such as false worship) are, by their nature, worse than violations of the other nine commandments.

During the first Assisi meeting in 1986, a Voodoo Witch doctor sacrificed chickens on the high altar of the St. Clare’s Church. If you look up “abomination of desolation” in the old Testament, it always consisted of a similar act - some kind of pagan sacrifice taking place on the Jewish altar. Every Catholic is bound, by the promises made at his baptism, to reject any such acts.

quote from the above post:

“During the first Assisi meeting in 1986, a Voodoo Witch doctor sacrificed chickens on the high altar of the St. Clare’s Church.”

Are you sure that this is really true? I did a google search, and couldn’t find any reliable source which addressed this. I’m not a fan of Assisi 1, but I don’t believe that it went this far. I don’t really want to get involved in this debate; I’d just like a reliable source for this assertion, if one exists (which I very much doubt).

 

[G_Inquisitor]

quote from the above post:

“During the first Assisi meeting in 1986, a Voodoo Witch doctor sacrificed chickens on the high altar of the St. Clare’s Church.”

Are you sure that this is really true? I did a google search, and couldn’t find any reliable source which addressed this. I’m not a fan of Assisi 1, but I don’t believe that it went this far. I don’t really want to get involved in this debate; I’d just like a reliable source for this assertion, if one exists (which I very much doubt).

A group of Italian intellectuals wrote a public letter to Pope Benedict after he announced Assisi III, in which they begged him to “flee the spirit of Assisi” They addressed the issue of the chickens it in the letter. Here’s a link.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/italian-catholic-intellectuals-beg.html

 

[Denise1957]

A group of Italian intellectuals wrote a public letter to Pope Benedict after he announced Assisi III, in which they begged him to “flee the spirit of Assisi” They addressed the issue of the chickens it in the letter. Here’s a link.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/italian-catholic-intellectuals-beg.html

So, because Rorate Caeli posted something about the chickens in an article written by supposed “intellectuals,” we’re supposed to believe that it really happened?

Uh…no. You’ll have to do better than that. I post quite often on Rorate Caeli - mostly to complain about how they intentionally post articles designed to rile-up trads.

And maybe it did happen, but you’ll have to find a reliable source before I believe it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Br. JR for your kind and detailed reply.

I am not sure that is correct. Is there a canon which states as such?

No. Nor will there ever be, because it’s not necessary. History itself gives us this example. The scriptures were put together by the Church, more than a century after the death of the last apostle. It was a judgment, not a dogma. The Church made a judgment as to what books and which chapters of those books went into the canon of scripture. That’s how we get the bible as we know it. Many of our traditions and practices are the product of reason and judgment. Our doctrine and morals are revealed truths. The rest comes through reason. That’s why I said that we can fit it into 50 pages, without the commentaries, obviously. How many pages were in the Baltimore Catechism? It contained every dogma and doctrine of the faith, obviously without the background information and without the theological commentaries. I’m sorry if I confused you.

Because you see, the teachings of the church are to be given full assent to and may not be questioned. BUT, this cannot extend to actions. If it could extend to actions, then while a Pope might act in questionable ways, the faithful will have to give full assent to him.

There are two kinds of assent. I like to explain them to my students this way. There is the assent of faith. That’s what you must believe. If you don’t believe it, then you’re something, but not Catholic. Then there is the assent of the will. That’s what you must obey and comply with. This does not require that you agree or believe. It requires that you submit to authority. Authority has the right to demand this kind of assent on all things but sin. The pope, your mother, nor the president can command you to sin. They don’t have that right. But the pope can command you to stand on your head when you’re in a church. It has nothing to do with faith or morals. But he’s the pope and you’re in one of his churches. Therefore, he’s legitimate authority.

Because you see, the right I would be exercising in letting the Pope know that something is scandalous in his actions would be similar to me informing a Catholic who is engaging in questionable decisions that they are imprudent.

The canon was written this way explicitly to avoid people droning on and on and expecting to be heard. There are two canons. One says that you have a right to express your concerns and the authority has the duty to listen. It does not bind authority to agree with you, nor does does it bind authority to listen to you more than once. The other canon says that there is no appeal above the pope. Once you have placed your case or concern before him and he responds, there is no other place to go. You can keep knocking at his door, but has the right to ignore you. Here is what is ineresting. Popes are not bound by Canon Law. Therefore, the canon that says that Catholics have a right to express their concerns to their pastors and pastors have a duty to listen, does not apply to the pope. He has no obligation to listen to us.

In this particular case, Pope Benedict did listen and he responded, as was posted in the first post. Therefore, it becomes futile to keep knocking on a door that is not going to open. He has decided. Since what he has decided is not sinful, he has the right to be obeyed. For something to be sinful it must be overtly contrary to the law of God and be recognized as such by legitimate Church authority, not by the faithful. We have no authority to say what is and is not sinful.

That’s the reason that Paul goes to Peter with his concern. Paul knew that something was wrong. But he did not have the authority to call it a sin or to change it. Only Peter could do that.

The Pope, Bishops and other Clergy are all fallible human beings when it comes to actions. Is that not true?

Yes. It’s true, but that does not take away their authority. The Church is not a democracy. The pope and the bishops are not subordinate to the faithful nor are they subject to the judgment of the faithful. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. Judgment is always from the top down, not the bottom up.

Because if the concerns expressed here are valid, then the Pope’s actions are indeed scandalous regardless of his intelligence, right?

Not really. It can be, but does not have to be. One can have valid concerns and later find out that we had no need to worry. Therefore, it does not follow that because your concerns are valid, the pope’s actions are scandalous. What is obvious here is that you and the pope disagree.

Did you see where I said that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are taking a Franciscan approach to this whole thing?

Well, from my observations, Pope Benedict is actually ruling as St. Francis ruled his order. The concerns on this thread were presented to him. He gave his response. The concerns continue and he’s not addressing them. This is a very Franciscan thing. Francis would address the concerns of the laity once. After that, if they continued to voice concerns, he would turn his back on them and ignore them. His position was that he could not make everyone happy. He was not about to try. He did it with the brothers and sisters too. He was ruthless with them. He’d listen, then respond and then tell us to “shut up”. He was very blunt about it. One brother dared cross that line and Francis asked the pope to excommunicate him, which did happen. I don’t think there are going to be excommunications for those who continue to express concern. I do see a pattern with which I’m probably more familiar than you, being a Franciscan. You answer the question and you move along. You don’t listen to it any more. It’s over as far as you’re concerned. Eventually, God will do what he will do.

 

[JReducation]

But the problem here is that under your view, any abusive father is a good father. Because when the father abuses, one may make the argument that ‘since he has not done anything to suspect him, his actions must be good and well thought out. Who are we to suspect our father’?

I think, in this case, it seems to indicate something just as wrong with the papal actions. He may not listen and he may think that what he is doing is right. But it does not reduce the fact that it is confusing to many Catholics.

The Pope’s decision may be final. But the concerns are valid and any Catholic is right in refusing to agree with his actions.

You can always disagree. What you can never do is ruin another person’s good name. This is where we have to be very careful. There are people who disagree with this so strongly that they have attacked the popes moral character. That’s unacceptable. That’s more than disagreement. That’s an assault.

I understand. I was a bit confused on how St. Paul said “no” and complained to St. Peter in acts then though when he was not eating with Jews. Is such disobedience also not allowed?

St. Paul was a secular priest, not a consecrated man. He was also a bishop; therefore, he was his own boss.

A religious man or woman is a consecrated person. He/she vows obedience unto death. There are no exceptions except one, when you are commanded to do something that the Church, not you, not your conscience, but the Church has named a sin. Then you must disobey. However, you may not separate yourself from your superior. You must remain with him and be subordinate to him in everything else.

In this case, the pope is not asking us to sin. There are people who are interpreting this as sin. However, as long as Peter himself says that it’s not a sin, then it’s not. The one area where Peter does not need to invoke infallibility is in the area of morals. It’s an automatic.

Let’s take this to Assisi. The pope says to the Franciscans that he wants them to host this event and to open their houses and facilities. They can’t say, “No, because we believe that this is a scandal.” That would be sufficient reason to get all kinds of punishments imposed on you. The only answer they can give is, “Yes, Your Holiness. What do you want us to do?”

While we’re on this topic, let me clarify something. There are a lot of reports about chickens and Buddahs at the first or second Assisi gathering. They are half truths. The whole truth was reported by the friars who actually live in Assisi.

The two incidents that people always put out there were the chicken and the Buddha. It sounds like a bad joke. The friars say that the monk did place the Buddha on top of a tabernacle, which was empty. The friars had taken the Blessed Sacrament away. However, when the friars saw it, they POLITELY explained to the monk what the tabernacle was for and the removed the Buddha and was very apologetic. The friar proceeded to find him a place to put it.

The chicken story is not as it is told. No events took place inside of the actual church of St. Clare. When you enter the building, the first space is the old church, which is now a huge gathering place. It’s been left standing, because it shelters the chapel of San Damiano. In front of the chapel of San Damiano, they often place a portable altar. It’s a full size piece of furniture, but you can pick it up and move it. It’s not always there.

The Holy Father’s people had asked for it, for some purpose. Don’t ask me, because I don’t know. Again, there was the incident with the chicken. The friars explained that this could not be done there. The person apologized and the situation was resolved.

My take on all of this is that there were people who made videos and took pictures of events, but published what supported their position on the event. People even said that the pope and the guests prayed inside the Basilica of St. Francis. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

When you walk up to the motherhouse, the building is huge. It has several parts that look as if it were all one, from the outside. One of those parts is a very large multipurpose room that is often used for chapters. It can hold up to about 2,000 people. The room was setup for the pope and his guests. The room is adjacent to the two churches, but it is not the church.

In fact, in the upper church, you can have a square dance. I wouldn’t suggest it. The upper church has no tabernacle and is often used for plays and concerts. The tabernacle is in a chapel and there is a lower church where our Holy Father is buried. Nothing ever happens down there excpet mass.

I also don’t think the concern is not that the Pope doesn’t outwardly condemn Islam. The issue is that when the Pope could stay silent, he instead chooses to hold events where he would be put in to situations where he has to say half truths.

Have you ever heard the pope say a half-truth?

The problem is increased in that these half truths can cause scandal to the faithful.

Pope Benedict said in an interview that he understood the meaning of scandal and this always concerns him. I’m paraphrasing. If we go looking for the bad, we’re always going to find something. That’s a very dangerous way of thinking that we have to avoid. Too many people make it a habit to look for the bad.

They definitely didn’t go there to get together with the religious in those countries to pray together to their respective deities, right?

The missionaries who were martyred went as evangelists. The pope is not going to Assisi to evangelize. He has made this very clear.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[G_Inquisitor]

So, because Rorate Caeli posted something about the chickens in an article written by supposed “intellectuals,” we’re supposed to believe that it really happened?

Uh…no. You’ll have to do better than that. I post quite often on Rorate Caeli - mostly to complain about how they intentionally post articles designed to rile-up trads.

And maybe it did happen, but you’ll have to find a reliable source before I believe it.

The letter by the Italian intellectuals is well known. When you asked for a reference, I did a quick google search using the words “Italian intellectuals Assisi” and clicked on the first one that popped up. Rorate-Caeli did not write the article, they just posted it (with a link to the original). If you do a google search, you should be able to find many more websites where the letter is posted.

Vittorio Messori also wrote about the chickens being sacrificed in La Stampa, which you can probably find by doing a google search. Here is a quote from the article:

“Ratzinger has not pardoned the Franciscan community for the excesses of the first day of prayers conducted by Pope John Paul II and leaders of other world religions. It was carnival-like, in the opinion of many – and it was the friars themselves who had gone far beyond previous agreements on what was to be done, in effect forcing the Pope to take part in questionable rites. The friars allowed African animists to kill two chickens on the altar of St. Clare’s and some American Indians to perform dances inside the Church”.

Here’s another link where an Archishop is calling for the introduction of animal sacrifice in Catholic Churches. cathnews.acu.edu.au/002/137.html

If we are not living through the Great Apostasy, I don’t want to be around when it arrives.

 

[JReducation]

The letter by the Italian intellectuals is well known. When you asked for a reference, I did a quick google search using the words “Italian intellectuals Assisi” and clicked on the first one that popped up. Rorate-Caeli did not write the article, they just posted it (with a link to the original). If you do a google search, you should be able to find many more websites where the letter is posted.

Vittorio Messori also wrote about the chickens being sacrificed in La Stampa, which you can probably find by doing a google search. Here is a quote from the article:

“Ratzinger has not pardoned the Franciscan community for the excesses of the first day of prayers conducted by Pope John Paul II and leaders of other world religions. It was carnival-like, in the opinion of many – and it was the friars themselves who had gone far beyond previous agreements on what was to be done, in effect forcing the Pope to take part in questionable rites. The friars allowed African animists to kill two chickens on the altar of St. Clare’s and some American Indians to perform dances inside the Church”.

Here’s another link where an Archishop is calling for the introduction of animal sacrifice in Catholic Churches. cathnews.acu.edu.au/002/137.html

If we are not living through the Great Apostasy, I don’t want to be around when it arrives.

The friars were called in for questioning and explained that this did not happen as it was reported, but it was in the outer chamber and that it was a situation that was smoothly and quickly fixed, without causing too much distress to anyone.

The problem is that some people would have liked the friars to make a scene in their objections. The friars chose not to do so. They chose to act very politely and calmly.

The thing that we always have to remember is that even when an event is for all Catholics, the unexpected is bound to happen. You deal with it the best you can and you move along. If you delegate someone to take care of something and they do it their way, the you want to be upset because they didn’t do it your way, it makes no sense delegating in the first place.

The report that reached Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was not exactly the same as the report that the friars gave upon questioning by the local bishop.

The only question left was, could the friars have handled the situation differently? The answer is alwasy going to to be yes. There are always going to be more than one way to deal with a situation. Sometimes there are three or four good ways.

What usually happens in situations like this is that when the unexpected happens, you don’t have a plan. You improvise as you move along. You want to fix the problem and you don’t want to attract a lot of attention to the problem, nor do you want to offend the pope’s guests. I challenge any of the naysayers to fill the shoes of the friars for one of these events.

It’s very easy to say that the friars should have done this or that, when you’re not caught between something out of the blue and the fact that the person who is doing the unsuals is your pope’s guest. When you’re in that position, you have to think fast, be diplomatic and keep in mind that if you mess up, your head will roll.

We have too many people telling others how they should do and should have done things, but they are not in those shoes. I dare anyone to say that they could have handled the situation better than the friars did. But I want to see proof. All those who made those comments should show us situations in which they found themselves and how cleverly and appropriately they handled those situations. They had better be equivalent situations.

How often does the pope ask you to host his guests?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Remember that the purpose of any thread is to learn and to enjoy. It is not to pass judgment on people’s moral character, especially not the pope’s.

 

[Denise1957]

The friars were called in for questioning and explained that this did not happen as it was reported, but it was in the outer chamber and that it was a situation that was smoothly and quickly fixed, without causing too much distress to anyone.

The problem is that some people would have liked the friars to make a scene in their objections. The friars chose not to do so. They chose to act very politely and calmly.

The thing that we always have to remember is that even when an event is for all Catholics, the unexpected is bound to happen. You deal with it the best you can and you move along. If you delegate someone to take care of something and they do it their way, the you want to be upset because they didn’t do it your way, it makes no sense delegating in the first place.

The report that reached Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was not exactly the same as the report that the friars gave upon questioning by the local bishop.

The only question left was, could the friars have handled the situation differently? The answer is alwasy going to to be yes. There are always going to be more than one way to deal with a situation. Sometimes there are three or four good ways.

What usually happens in situations like this is that when the unexpected happens, you don’t have a plan. You improvise as you move along. You want to fix the problem and you don’t want to attract a lot of attention to the problem, nor do you want to offend the pope’s guests. I challenge any of the naysayers to fill the shoes of the friars for one of these events.

It’s very easy to say that the friars should have done this or that, when you’re not caught between something out of the blue and the fact that the person who is doing the unsuals is your pope’s guest. When you’re in that position, you have to think fast, be diplomatic and keep in mind that if you mess up, your head will roll.

We have too many people telling others how they should do and should have done things, but they are not in those shoes. I dare anyone to say that they could have handled the situation better than the friars did. But I want to see proof. All those who made those comments should show us situations in which they found themselves and how cleverly and appropriately they handled those situations. They had better be equivalent situations.

How often does the pope ask you to host his guests?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for sharing what really happened. Unfortunately, sometimes the real situation is not what gets reported.

If someone showed up at my home with chickens and proceded, unannounced, to sacrifice them, it would be difficult to deal with. Not to mention that it would be kind of messy! Yuk!

 

[G_Inquisitor]

Thank you for sharing what really happened. Unfortunately, sometimes the real situation is not what gets reported.

If someone showed up at my home with chickens and proceded, unannounced, to sacrifice them, it would be difficult to deal with. Not to mention that it would be kind of messy! Yuk!

If someone showed up at my Church and attempted to sacrifice a chicken, I can guarantee you that I would have no hesitancy in putting a stop to it. And I would expect that all my fellow Catholics would do the same - certainly the men! No real Catholic man would stand for such a sacrilege.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for sharing what really happened. Unfortunately, sometimes the real situation is not what gets reported.

If someone showed up at my home with chickens and proceded, unannounced, to sacrifice them, it would be difficult to deal with. Not to mention that it would be kind of messy! Yuk!

If someone showed up at my Church and attempted to sacrifice a chicken, I can guarantee you that I would have no hesitancy in putting a stop to it. And I would expect that all my fellow Catholics would do the same - certainly the men! No real Catholic man would stand for such a sacrilege.

It’s always important to understand that the person who is present is not expecting this and has to think quickly.

It’s also equally important to imagine yourself as hosting an event where the guests are the pope’s guests.

This can certainly be nerve racking.

Inquisitor, I think your statement is unfair. These friars are real Catholic men. This has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the element of surprise and being under pressure.

As I said above, the friars could have done better, but they did what came fastest to them. I will not judge them, because I have no idea how I would do it. The idea of playing host to the pope’s guests is enough to unhinge me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[_L]

What a bad idea to go to this. Leaders of a bunch of religions that believe in false gods getting together with the leader of the one true religion and making it seem they are all on par. What could go wrong? Hopefully this won’t scandalize many of us as much as the previous ones.

I think this precisely why he is going, to make sure your fears do not occur.