Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[ProVobis]

I liked Latin, and the Polish Mass.

When I was growing up in the UK, I heard Polish at home, English in school, and Latin in Church. I had most of the bases covered.

 

[edwest2]

When I was growing up in the UK, I heard Polish at home, English in school, and Latin in Church. I had most of the bases covered.

Aside from English, my mother spoke 4 different languages, my father, 3. Most of the time, they would talk to me in Polish.

Ed

 

[JoyIsLikeRain]

I don’t think I have ever known a Catholic who believes the above, with one exception. The SSPX folks do believe Vatican II was fatally flawed.

I’ve met “fundamentalist” Catholics who also believe:

-Galileo was wrong ("flat-earthers’).
-Home-schooling is the only way to educate their children
-Having less than 4 children is “selfish”

 

[JimG]

I’ve met “fundamentalist” Catholics who also believe:

-Galileo was wrong ("flat-earthers’).
-Home-schooling is the only way to educate their children
-Having less than 4 children is “selfish”

I suppose that there are some of those types of Catholics. But I don’t think the pope said that was what he meant by “fundamentalist.” So, I think we are all just guessing what he had in mind.

 

[Thomas_White]

That I reject your position hardly means that I don’t understand it.
Given, as you have admitted, that the certain judgment of conscience can in fact be wrong, it is assuredly a subjective opinion.

To say that the certain judgment of conscience is “assuredly a subjective opinion” is ipso facto to misunderstand the church’s teaching on conscience.

Why would there need to be a determination of validity by someone other than the individual if the individual’s judgment is guaranteed to be accurate, that is, not subjective? Second, that determination has to be made based on the facts and the law, and how are priests, who are not trained in the law and have few resources (let alone the necessary time) supposed to carry out this task? Why would turning this task over to parish priests be an improvement over the existing process?

To understand this requires an understanding of the difference between the internal and the external forums.

Why would a determination of the validity of a sacrament necessarily have “to be made on the facts and the law…” This is the attempt to objectively determine and judge whether or not a sacrament is valid, and it is this that I see as highly questionable (unless it is a question of lack of proper form). A sacrament occurs between God and a person and not anyone else, and, in my opinion, it is not for others to judge. In the instance of the Sacrament of Marriage, the priest is only an external witness to the sacrament. Are we to suppose that a marriage tribunal, perhaps two or more decades later and many miles distant, can objectively determine what occurs at that moment between God and a human being? I would think the best answer would be “maybe, but maybe not”.
"13490746:

Because it is a matter of the facts and the law. Not to mention that this point has already been decided.7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable. (Cardinal Ratzinger)

As noted in a prior comment (#86), the church moved away from what was known as the Internal Solution following Vatican II, and I would think this was most likely in reaction to what became an out of control process during the implementation of it. To say the validity of a sacrament is limited to the facts and the law is a limited perspective and an objective point of view, and typically isolated quotations are used to support such a view. In this instance, the view is “blinkered” in that it does not recognize the teachings of the conscience as provided by the CCC and also lacks a correct understanding of what Cardinal Ratzinger has said concerning the error of a certain judgment of conscience. This was explained several times in two different threads, and a link to what Cardinal Ratzinger said was provided.

I see no sense in arguing this time and time and again. Simply stated, I do not believe that the spirituality of a human being can be known objectively by other persons. What occurs between God and man and is an experience that necessarily has an inner component. What I think is that it is the so-called objective judgment of a marriage tribunal concerning the validity of a marriage (and therefore of a sacrament) that is highly questionable, and I would have nothing to do with it. It potentially involves the error of legalism. In my view legalism fails to recognize true spirituality, and in its extreme it becomes fundamentalism. I further believe, as Pope Francis has said, that in its extreme fundamentalism becomes evil.
I’ll also point out that Ratzinger in talking about “mistaken convictions” clearly makes the point that the conscience can in fact err.
It is not at all unreasonable to first approach a priest with what one believes to be the facts surrounding the failure of the first marriage to see if a case can be made. No one opposes this. The opposition arises when it is implied that this is all that needs to be done.
If this was true then the conscience could never err, but we know the conscience in fact can err, therefore the conscience, certain or not, is a subjective opinion.

Ender

No one has said or implied that “this is all that needs to be done”. Is not a priest and bishop also mentioned in the final synod document with respect to a certain judgment?

We know the conscience can err, and this is not disputed. It has been recognized over and over again. And than it can err is explained in the link provided on several other threads to the article in which Cardinal Ratzinger explains it. I can see no good reason to attempt to explain this once again.

 

[anthony022071]

I think again there is a problem with his words being lost in translation.

It is when we sit on self-made thrones saying that everyone is damned to Hell and that every other religious follower is evil that our religion stops being ‘religion’ and becomes ‘idolatry’. Our Lord did not sit on a throne when He came down from Heaven but took the form of a slave (though He spoke with Authority). It was the Scribe and Pharisees who were the ‘fundamentalists’. I’m sure we can all be a bit like this. This is a healthy reminder. It is not that we don’t have the whole truth - this is the where I think the translation has incurred problems - it is that we think ourselves superior because of we know the truth, or at least, we let knowledge of the truth cut us off from others and we build canyons instead of bridges. As for a certain religion specifically, then I see this particular religion as a bit for those who can believe what they want from it, and so in terms of him having friends who are categorised by their ‘…’ religion, I’d say they are just prayerful people who believe in love and find some good in their ‘religion’. I am not sure he is infallible on matters of Islam so it doesn’t worry me. But he is the Pope. The important thing is to trust that he spoke with authority, which he does, and if we find his words challenging then they will be good for us for he is here to serve us and shepherd us. He is right as far as he needs to be and is required to be. His words made me think. I am grateful he spoke them. What he is infallible over is Love Eternal. He speaks with love. In Love. And for Love.

St. Paul said that we should try to be everything for everyone whom we meet. How can we be everything to others when we assert ourselves with over-riding feelings of grandeur?

Fundamentalism doesn’t mean unjustly condemning others. The scribes and Pharisees weren’t fundamentalists. They were just hard-hearted and hypocritical and lacked understanding. Jesus accused them of putting lesser matters such as tithing and ritual cleaning above the greater matters of judgement and mercy and fidelity, and of showing off their importance in public, and of leading young men to disobey the commandment to honor their parents, and of laying heavy burdens on the people.

What the pope and many others inaccurately call fundamentalism is really bitter zeal that lacks understanding and charity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fundamentalism doesn’t mean unjustly condemning others. The scribes and Pharisees weren’t fundamentalists. They were just hard-hearted and hypocritical and lacked understanding.

How is that different than fundamentalists ?

Jim

 

[anthony022071]

I’ve met “fundamentalist” Catholics who also believe:

-Galileo was wrong ("flat-earthers’).
-Home-schooling is the only way to educate their children
-Having less than 4 children is “selfish”

That doesn’t amount to fundamentalism, its just conservative beliefs. Fundamentalism is a protestant attitude that emphasizes certain fundamental Christian beliefs.

The belief that Galileo was wrong is not belief that the the earth is flat. Galileo held that the sun is stationary and the center of the universe, but that is not provable and it is not held by anyone today.

 

[anthony022071]

How is that different than fundamentalists ?

Jim

Fundamentalism is not about hard-heartedness and hypocrisy and lack of understanding, it is a protestant attitude that emphasizes certain fundamental Christian doctrines the divine inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, the Virgin birth of Jesus, the belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin,the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus.

If many fundamentalists are hard-hearted and hypocritical and lack understanding, it is not because of fundamentalism itself, but because of their own personal tendencies and their protestantism - their false protestant belief in faith alone and scripture alone and their protestant presumption that they are justified and already saved for eternal life, and that everyone who does not think as they do are lost or going to hell.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fundamentalism is not about hard-heartedness and hypocrisy and lack of understanding,.

Actually, it is and what Pope Francis is addressing

Jim

 

[anthony022071]

Actually, it is and what Pope Francis is addressing

Jim

No, that is not the definition of fundamentalism. Hypocricy, hard-heartedness and lack of understanding are characteristics that are commonly seen in persons who are fundamentalists, but they do not proceed from the tenets of fundamentalism itself, but from people’s own natural tendencies and from protestantism. What the pope calls fundamentalism is really bitter zeal and self-righteousness. It is sloppy, unfair thinking to label that attitude as fundamentalism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, that is not the definition of fundamentalism. Hypocricy, hard-heartedness and lack of understanding are characteristics that are commonly seen in persons who are fundamentalists, but they do not proceed from the tenets of fundamentalism itself, but from people’s own natural tendencies and from protestantism. What the pope calls fundamentalism is really bitter zeal and self-righteousness. It is sloppy, unfair thinking to label that attitude as fundamentalism.

Its the product of fundamentalism if you will, but I think you’re grasping at straws here.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

No, that is not the definition of fundamentalism. Hypocricy, hard-heartedness and lack of understanding are characteristics that are commonly seen in persons who are fundamentalists, but they do not proceed from the tenets of fundamentalism itself, but from people’s own natural tendencies and from protestantism. What the pope calls fundamentalism is really bitter zeal and self-righteousness. It is sloppy, unfair thinking to label that attitude as fundamentalism.

From the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said about Catholic fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

 

[JimG]

From the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said about Catholic fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

As opposed to those who believe that all truth is provisional? That doctrines might change? That the CCC is a contingent document that might or might not contain truth? Would someone who asserts that Jesus is absolutely the Son of God a fundamentalist for claiming that as an absolute truth?

 

[Thomas_White]

As opposed to those who believe that all truth is provisional? That doctrines might change? That the CCC is a contingent document that might or might not contain truth? Would someone who asserts that Jesyus is absolutely the Son of God a fundamentalist for claiming that as an absolute truth?

Again, from the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said, and I am unwilling to attempt to interpret what the pope has said, though I will say I believe he was speaking of the understanding of “absolute truth” and perhaps of the error of those who believe they posses the fullness of divine revelation.

 

[JimG]

Again, from the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said, and I am unwilling to attempt to interpret what the pope has said, though I will say I believe he was speaking of the understanding of “absolute truth” and perhaps of the error of those who believe they posses the fullness of divine revelation.

But you did interpret what the pope said. Your words were:
“Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.”

Do you believe that there is no absolute truth? Must we all be relativists? Are Catholic doctrines true? Is the Creed which we recite at Mass true?

 

[Thomas_White]

But you did interpret what the pope said. Your words were:
“Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.”

Do you believe that there is no absolute truth? Must we all be relativists? Are Catholic doctrines true? Is the Creed which we recite at Mass true?

Again, this what Pope Francis said: “We Catholics have some [fundamentalists]–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth…”

If you disagree with this comment, it would be better if you acknowledged that it is Pope Francis with whom you disagree rather than attribute the comment to me. What I said is no interpretation, and it is not without good reason that a person should at times limit what is said as much as possible.

No, I don’t believe there is no absolute truth. Seriously, it is not difficult to see that “absolute truth” and the belief that one has possession of it are not the same thing.

 

[JimG]

Pope Francis has said that he is a faithful son of the Church, and I believe him, so I strongly suspect that the pope is Catholic. As such, I’m pretty sure that he believes in some absolute truths, probably a lot of them.

For myself, I believe in a lot of absolute truths. I believe that it is absolutely true that I exist. I believe that it is absolutely true that God exists, that God is one being—one in essence; that God is a Trinity of Persons in one divine nature. I believe absolutely that Jesus in his Person is the Second Person of the Trinity, that he became man by taking on a human nature. I believe it is the absolute truth that all things were created by God.

Well, there are a number of other absolute truths that I firmly believe, but I need not iterate them here. I’m pretty sure that the pope would not disagree with me that these things are absolutely true. But I don’t think anyone has taken the trouble to interview him on the truths of the Catholic Faith in great detail.

I just don’t see any necessary connection between believing in absolute truth and doing evil to other people. Catholic truth does not lead one to do evil.

 

[edwest2]

From the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said about Catholic fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

But you failed to mention the other things he included.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

But you failed to mention the other things he included.

Ed

It is all right there in the quote, and if you disagree with the quote then say so. It doesn’t get any better, that’s for sure.