"Pope Francis Digs at Vatican's Narcissistic Nature.."

  • Thread starter Thread starter relstudent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Luciano Pavarotti is a good example of this “old style immorality”. He abandoned his wife for a younger women, lived in adultery, but, in the end, reconciled with the Church, and sought confession and absolution. He sinned, but he knew he was sinning.

The modern mindset is to redefine sin to be the good.

God Bless
Hello bilop, 🙂

I am just wondering if you could please clarify, are you saying that Pope Francis is a relativist and with his concerns about unmarried couples etc… is going to make adultery etc… unsinful? If so, when and where did he say this or insinuated this?

I understand that he is meeting with eight cardinals and they are addressing this issue of people living out in an ‘existential periphery’ and they are going to address their situation but, these cardinals and the Pope are as Catholic as they come. They are addressing a problem our brothers and sisters have but they are not going to make null our faith and doctrines.

We do not want to waste our time fighting the wind like Don Quixote. Let’s be patient and wait to hear what they have come up with. Maybe praying to the Holy Spirit to illuminate them would not be a bad thing to do. It is our faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, let’s pray for patience and peace and trust in God.
 
And on what do you base this? There really is no basis to claim that people in the past were repentant, more so than people today. There was as much apathy towards morality in the past as there is today. Things really were not any better, that notion really is an idealised myth.
I disagree.

Prior to 1930, every Christian church in the world taught abortion was wrong, pre-marital sex was wrong, homosexual acts were wrong.

Today we have many sects that say they’re all AOK, and will even ordain ministers who practice these sins. There has been a shocking decline in public morality.

Hypocrisy has been called the tribute vice pays to virtue. Today’s sinners don’t even bother to pay that paltry tribute.

God Bless
 
Hello bilop, 🙂

I am just wondering if you could please clarify, are you saying that Pope Francis is a relativist and with his concerns about unmarried couples etc… is going to make adultery etc… unsinful? If so, when and where did he say this or insinuated this?

I understand that he is meeting with eight cardinals and they are addressing this issue of people living out in an ‘existential periphery’ and they are going to address their situation but, these cardinals and the Pope are as Catholic as they come. They are addressing a problem our brothers and sisters have but they are not going to make null our faith and doctrines.

We do not want to waste our time fight the wind like Don Quixote. Let’s be patient and wait to hear what they have come up with. Maybe praying to the Holy Spirit to illuminate them would not be a bad thing to do. It is our faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, let’s pray for patience and peace and trust in God.
No, I am not saying that Francis is a relativist, far from it. I think he is personally very orthodox.

My complaint, is that he says things that can be easily misconstrued as giving aid and comfort to relativism. That’s not what he means, but that’s what the media and the secularists are running with.

God Bless
 
I disagree.

Prior to 1930, every Christian church in the world taught abortion was wrong, pre-marital sex was wrong, homosexual acts were wrong.
That may be true, but many people didn’t give a hoot what the Churches said and did their own thing (just as they do today). The notion that society in general respected what the Church said is a romanticised view of the past. The high levels of depravity and immorality (in many time periods often higher than levels today) indicate that depravity and immorality was ingrained in the fabric of the prevailing culture at the time. The myth of the ‘Good Old days’ is simply a myth (just like the myth of 'Victorian Values).
 
I disagree.

Prior to 1930, every Christian church in the world taught abortion was wrong, pre-marital sex was wrong, homosexual acts were wrong.

Today we have many sects that say they’re all AOK, and will even ordain ministers who practice these sins. There has been a shocking decline in public morality.

Hypocrisy has been called the tribute vice pays to virtue. Today’s sinners don’t even bother to pay that paltry tribute.

God Bless
Like someone said before that there are fewer people that believe in the death penalty today. Most of the world does not believe in slavery. Most of the world does not tolerate adults being able to marry children or have multiple wives.

The opinions of people are also much more public than they have ever been.
 
Like someone said before that there are fewer people that believe in the death penalty today. Most of the world does not believe in slavery. Most of the world does not tolerate adults being able to marry children or have multiple wives.

The opinions of people are also much more public than they have ever been.
The death penalty is not sinful per se, so that doesn’t really count.

Slavery has been more than offset by abortion. The Christian world hasn’t been marrying children or having multiple wives for 1500 years. and the Muslim world is OK with it.

I don’t see a big improvement.

God Bless
 
The death penalty is not sinful per se, so that doesn’t really count.

Slavery has been more than offset by abortion. The Christian world hasn’t been marrying children or having multiple wives for 1500 years. and the Muslim world is OK with it.

I don’t see a big improvement.

God Bless
I never said there was a big improvement, but like others here I do not believe there has been a shocking decline has you stated.

Bottom line with this thread is that if you don’t have a great background or knowledge of The Jesuits or The Franciscans you will not understand Pope Francis and where he is trying to lead the Church.

I was born and raised around The Jesuits, going to Catholic school for 12 year run by The Jesuit. Going to a Jesuit parish and following my mother by working at a Jesuit high school. I would never be so bold as to think I knew much about where Pope Benedict was coming from, and I can’t say I was overjoyed when he was our Pope.

With all the evils in the world, each Pope will have there own thought on what needs to be focused on at the time. Just because Pope Francis is not focusing on your issue and choosing to condemn does not make him dangerous.
 
I disagree. People in the past sinned like people always do, but they didn’t deny the sinful nature of their acts systematically.

God Bless
How can you believe this when not long ago our nation and our Church justified slavery, and even less long ago justified systematic discrimination? From tax collectors in Christ’s time, to slave holders in the near past to bigots and greedy business men today, we have all, always justified our sins “systematically”. To suppose we live in an especially evil time now is no less hubris then supposing we live in an especially holy one - there is nothing new under the sun.
 
I disagree.

Prior to 1930, every Christian church in the world taught abortion was wrong, pre-marital sex was wrong, homosexual acts were wrong.

Today we have many sects that say they’re all AOK, and will even ordain ministers who practice these sins. There has been a shocking decline in public morality.

Hypocrisy has been called the tribute vice pays to virtue. Today’s sinners don’t even bother to pay that paltry tribute.

God Bless
Prior to about 1960, Catholic parishes in the south abided by segregation and said it was not a sin. Prior to 1865, some Catholic dioceses owned slaves. The did not admit that behavior was sinful. The myth that there was some idyllic more wholesome past is just that, a myth.
 
I never said there was a big improvement, but like others here I do not believe there has been a shocking decline has you stated.

Bottom line with this thread is that if you don’t have a great background or knowledge of The Jesuits or The Franciscans you will not understand Pope Francis and where he is trying to lead the Church.

I was born and raised around The Jesuits, going to Catholic school for 12 year run by The Jesuit. Going to a Jesuit parish and following my mother by working at a Jesuit high school. I would never be so bold as to think I knew much about where Pope Benedict was coming from, and I can’t say I was overjoyed when he was our Pope.

With all the evils in the world, each Pope will have there own thought on what needs to be focused on at the time. Just because Pope Francis is not focusing on your issue and choosing to condemn does not make him dangerous.
I think I am more afraid of those who claim they understand Pope Francis and actually consider that they do in the sense that Pope Francis is saying something different from other Popes and the Church had for 2000 years.

That to me indicates a wrong understanding regardless of whether you went Jesuit school or a Dominican one.
 
Like someone said before that there are fewer people that believe in the death penalty today. Most of the world does not believe in slavery. Most of the world does not tolerate adults being able to marry children or have multiple wives.

The opinions of people are also much more public than they have ever been.
The Death Penalty is not intrinsically immoral and is in fact moral when carried out by the State for the right cases.
Slavery is not intrinsically immoral and we are in fact called to be slaves of Christ.

In comparison, here is the modern day list of sins.

Abortion is intrinsically immoral
Contraception is intrinsically immoral
Atheism is intrinsically immoral
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and the practice of it is intrinsically immoral
Gender change operations are intrinsically immoral
Transgender concept is intrinsically disordered and the practice of it is intrinsically immoral
IVF is intrinsically immoral
Euthanasia is intrinsically immoral
Sex outside a marital commitment is intrinsically immoral
Pornography is intrinsically immoral

That was just off the top of my head. All of these are what people engage in today with NO REMORSE.

In the past, the mass scale public crimes were matters that were not intrinsically immoral. Even when some society or empire had such immorality, it was either one or two intrinsic evils. Every society that held at least one of those intrinsically immoral things perished very soon as well. Only one that we can consider that was intrinsically immoral and held somewhat globally since Christianity took over 2000 years ago was RACISM which treated human beings with a different colored skin as being less than human. That was always opposed by Christianity as well. Everything else was never accepted by the whole world as good. Even Nazi Germany’s idea of Eugenics was rejected by big parts of the world (otherwise we wouldn’t have had a war).

Today, unlike in any other time (since perhaps the Carthaginian Empire that promoted Child Sacrificing Baal worship as its religion), we have a global push to make the above intrinsically immoral list accepted in EVERY COUNTRY.

If you think we are doing much better than in the past, you need to WAKE UP!
**
EDIT: The Carthaginian Empire never went global so the situation today is actually unprecedented. **
 
Even Nazi Germany’s idea of Eugenics was rejected by big parts of the world (otherwise we wouldn’t have had a war).
That statement is incorrect. World War II was not about eugenics at all. The Allied forces did not decide to go to war against Hitler because of his philosophy of eugenics (indeed there was some support for it in Britain). The Allied nations went to war against Hitler because he sent his tanks into Poland and then into France and was headed for Britain. World War II was not a war against racist eugenics. The only Allied force that had any ideological motivation as regards going to war against Hitler was the Russians. World War II was not a war fought about ideologies. Britain, France, America etc. did not go to war against Hitler to defeat facist ideology.

If Hitler had not been in favour of eugenics World War II would still have happened. His ideology was a side issue as far as the Allies were concerned. The war was about national survival in the face of a powerful German army trying to invade and conquer the whole of Europe. Eugenics didn’t come into the equation (one way or the other) as far as the Allies were concerned.
 
I think I am more afraid of those who claim they understand Pope Francis and actually consider that they do in the sense that Pope Francis is saying something different from other Popes and the Church had for 2000 years.

That to me indicates a wrong understanding regardless of whether you went Jesuit school or a Dominican one.
Then it’s our job to correct them. Although I highly doubt they would change anything even if we did. They didn’t need to misinterpret the Pope for validation before, they don’t need to now.
 
That statement is incorrect. World War II was not about eugenics at all. The Allied forces did not decide to go to war against Hitler because of his philosophy of eugenics (indeed there was some support for it in Britain). The Allied nations went to war against Hitler because he sent his tanks into Poland and then into France and was headed for Britain. World War II was not a war against racist eugenics. The only Allied force that had any ideological motivation as regards going to war against Hitler was the Russians. World War II was not a war fought about ideologies. Britain, France, America etc. did not go to war against Hitler to defeat facist ideology.

If Hitler had not been in favour of eugenics World War II would still have happened. His ideology was a side issue as far as the Allies were concerned. The war was about national survival in the face of a powerful German army trying to invade and conquer the whole of Europe. Eugenics didn’t come into the equation (one way or the other) as far as the Allies were concerned.
Way to miss the point my friend. Way to miss the point. Carry on.
 
Slavery is not intrinsically immoral and we are in fact called to be slaves of Christ.
We are called to be servants of Christ. Not slaves. Slaves do not choose to follow. Slaves are not loved. Slavery is Intrinsically Immoral. Christ is our Shepard, not our slave-master.
 
We are called to be servants of Christ. Not slaves. Slaves do not choose to follow. Slaves are not loved. Slavery is Intrinsically Immoral. Christ is our Shepard, not our slave-master.
Well, this is not the thread for Theological explanations of dissertations of historical documents. I would have to kindly ask you to go read some of the saints and see how they clearly write that we are to become slaves of Christ (in the case of Montfort, slaves of Christ by being a slave to Mary).

It is the 21st century pride in my opinion that has made this notion of becoming slaves to Christ unpalatable. (Perhaps the negative connotation of slavery associated with Racism has also played a role).
 
My complaint, is that he says things that can be easily misconstrued as giving aid and comfort to relativism.
Bottom line with this thread is that if you don’t have a great background or knowledge of The Jesuits or The Franciscans you will not understand Pope Francis and where he is trying to lead the Church.
I think I am more afraid of those who claim they understand Pope Francis and actually consider that they do in the sense that Pope Francis is saying something different from other Popes and the Church had for 2000 years.

That to me indicates a wrong understanding regardless of whether you went Jesuit school or a Dominican one.
Let’s begin with the end. Pope Francis has not said anything that has not been said by the Church before… His language and his pedagogy is very Jesuit. His priorities are very Franciscan. It makes for a rather interesting combination that we have never seen before.

Remember, the last religious pope that we had was in the 1700s. Every pope has been a secular priest. As strange as it may sound, even though secular priests do not share a common school of spirituality, because they’re not part of any community, they were formed in a common school of theology, which was Thomist. Religious were not, except for Dominicans. Religious were formed in the schools of their orders. There is a misunderstanding on the part of many people. When Church law declared Thomas to be the standard for theological formation, it was never applied to all religious orders. Religious orders were older than the law. Most religious houses of formation went down the middle. This certainly influences how priests and brothers from religious orders organize their thoughts and prioritize their mission.

There is another important factor here. That factor is pedagogy. Ignatian pedagogy is very particular to the Jesuits. I don’t think that anyone else but the Jesuits use it. Pedagogy is the method or the mechanics of how you deliver a message. Ignatian pedagogy has rules that the Jesuits must follow. Interestingly enough, St. Ignatius never wanted his order to be boxed in to saying things the way that other orders said them. He gave them a system that they follow to this day. To those who have been exposed to it, it all sounds very familiar. To the majority of Catholics it can rattle them.

One of the strengths of Ignatian pedagogy is that it is very focussed. It only deals with a few ideas at a time. The speaker, teacher or preacher does not try to exhaust his subject. He picks two or three points, not usually more than three, and speaks about those. This means that there is always more to be said on a subject; but the Jesuit is not going to address it at that point in time.

Pope Francis is a very candid speaker. Often he makes statements that are perfectly orthodox, but he’s not too concerned about the wording, because the other person will know enough to know what he means and how he feels. The Jesuit mindset is that one does not have to repeat over and over again what has been said. To some this sounds like his minimizing the importance of what was said. Nothing is further from the truth.

The truth is that in Ignatian thought there is no reason to tell you that milk is white, because you have seen mike before. He’s make a comment about milk that is not familiar ans leave you the task for finding sources to fill in the blanks.

I’ve had people say to me that the pope has to be more pope than Jesuit. To which I say that this is easier said than done. I’ll use my example. I find that personal examples help others understand.

I run a large ministry for an archdiocese. I founded the ministry. When I founded the ministry, its goals, philosophy, its methods, its focus and the model that we use to serve is the exact same model used by St. Maximilian Kolbe. During this time and even up to his inquiry for canonization some thought that Maximilian bordered on idolatry. It took many Franciscans to convince the cardinals at the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints to convince them that St. Max was not a heretic or an idolater. He was being very much himself and much of his language came from Duns Scotus.

In the meantime, people will misunderstand, because it’s a different language and a different set of priorities. But one has a duty to one’s religious tradition, even when one is pope. The papacy is an office. Being a Jesuit is a covenant that defines who you are and how you approach things. As long as you approach situations in a way that does not change the faith, you’re good. You simply pray that whatever you say will bear fruit in due season, not necessarily today.

It’s very important not to jump all over every word and sentence that a Pope makes until one is absolutely sure that the pope is wrong and one is right. One has to assume that he is being a Jesuit. There is no mistake here. Pope Francis is very much a part of the Jesuit Order and at age 76 is not about to change this. He can only do what he knows how to do well using the skills that he knows how to use and the priorities that his beloved St. Ignatius would have in mind.
 
Well, this is not the thread for Theological explanations of dissertations of historical documents. I would have to kindly ask you to go read some of the saints and see how they clearly write that we are to become slaves of Christ (in the case of Montfort, slaves of Christ by being a slave to Mary).

It is the 21st century pride in my opinion that has made this notion of becoming slaves to Christ unpalatable. (Perhaps the negative connotation of slavery associated with Racism has also played a role).
Gregory of Nyssa spoke clearly of of the inherent Evil in slavery. I’ll leave it at that.
 
Let’s begin with the end. Pope Francis has not said anything that has not been said by the Church before.. His language and his pedagogy is very Jesuit. His priorities are very Franciscan. It makes for a rather interesting combination that we have never seen before.
Exactly Brother. This is what I have concluded after contemplating (before confession today) on your posts to me from yesterday as well (I must thank you for it).

The way I have come to find peace is in understanding that I may indeed not understand what the Pope is saying in his interviews. I feel that is ok because its an interview and I should not even trouble myself to try and understand it. My time is better spent praying or reading an actual teaching work of the Church or the Catechism (as Pope Francis himself instructed).

It is part of my faith as a Catholic that the Pope will not change doctrine or dogma. It is part of my faith as a Catholic that the Pope will not adjust or evolve doctrine or dogma in a way that it contradicts the prior sense and meaning of it. Therefore I have nothing to fear and my time is best spent explaining to those who try to use the interviews as a launch pad for their own non-Catholic ideas that they are misinterpreting the Pope by quoting Church teaching.
 
Gregory of Nyssa spoke clearly of of the inherent Evil in slavery. I’ll leave it at that.
Inherent Evil =/= Intrinsic Evil.

Slavery is only immoral if the person is treated in a less than human way. A good slave master does not treat his slaves that way and neither will Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top