Pope Francis, Interviews, and finding Peace

[Jaberwocky]

So after 200+ posts on the topics mostly related to Pope Francis and his interviews, I realized today that I have been engaged in some very futile actions. My reasons for posting on these topics were

1. To convince others that the interviews of Pope Francis does have ambiguous wording and that the interviews can be interpreted incorrectly much easily and the danger was very real
2. An implicit suspicion perhaps that the Pope was not misinterpreted but he had intentionally said something unorthodox.

After much contemplation, I realize how insane I was. To answer my own reasons in order

1. What does it profit me to convince others that the Pope uses ambiguous wording? Can they phone the Pope and tell him to be more careful next time? More importantly, can it stop them from misinterpreting the Pope? Can it stop others from misinterpreting the Pope? Apart from venting my frustration perhaps in meeting those who start quoting the misinterpreted words of Pope Francis to me, did it have anything else? To my horror, I realized that I had wasted the time I could have spent convincing those who had misinterpreted the Pope how they were wrong. The whole thing had been a self serving exercise to vent my frustration. I could have had more success convincing many about actual Church teaching (on this forum alone) rather than trying to convince people about the problems in the interview.
2. I realized that it is actually part of my Christian faith that I hold the Pope will not teach wrong. So even when I do not understand what he said and how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, the right thing to do is to just presume he did and move on. Could he teach wrong in the interview? Certainly but its not my place to bother about it. There is no requirement of faith to even try and understand what the Pope says in interviews. The interviews are not encyclicals or locations where evolution of Dogma and Doctrine takes place. So there is no reason to even bother wondering how to reconcile the sense of the interviews with Doctrine, Dogma and even traditions or disciplines of the Church. If something does not make sense, pick the closest Orthodox teaching to it and move on.

I must admit that going online and seeing my favorite Apologists carefully analyzing every word in the interview to present “what the Pope was really saying” was actually detrimental to me. It made me treat the Pope’s interview like an encyclical and I hope any Apologist who comes across this will take note of that.

So I realize that my duty now as a lay Catholic is to continue my words of evangelizing. Is it a bit harder with the misinterpretations? Yes but to complain is self serving. I should take it as a cross and continue forward considering it as a challenge. I should have the certainty of faith that no matter what happens, the Pope is not going to change the Doctrine and Dogma of the Church. When he changes the disciplines, I must follow his lead out of filial respect even when I wouldn’t quiet see why. But I do not have to presume he has changed Discipline or traditions and overreact. For the past and future interviews, I must read in Orthodox teachings to the words of the Pope and consider it is what he meant rather than bother about it.

I should also thank Brother JR for his replies to my posts that lead me to this conclusion. I would like to end with a Psalm I heard on the feast of St. Therese of the Child Jesus past Tuesday that first got me thinking as well.

O Lord, my heart is not lifted up,
my eyes are not raised too high;
do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvellous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.*

O Israel, hope in the Lord
from this time on and for evermore.

 

[triumphguy]

Good post:thumbsup:

 

[shelby_sun]

I hope that you can accept that your evangelizing will be different than Pope Francis’ evangelizing, and both are needed.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Good post:thumbsup:

Thanks!

But it should be said that I do not agree with all the things you said yesterday
I do consider your view as having some misconceptions that is not compatible with the Church teaching and traditions that needs to be discussed.

But that is for a later date

 

[Jaberwocky]

I hope that you can accept that your evangelizing will be different than Pope Francis’ evangelizing, and both are needed.

If by “Evangelizing is different” you mean the truth that no man can be approached the same way today, then yes.

But I do believe that there are limits on the types of approach dictated by Church teaching as well as Prudence. I hold that Pope Francis has not advocated that we cross those lines and for us to understand as such is wrong.

So Pope Francis is not asking for a post-Vatican II style change we experienced in our churches where Priests stopped talking about morality and started distributing communion to all. Neither is he asking that we stop speaking about these matters with those who we meet. In fact, speaking about these things can pave the way to talk greater things. I think the Pope is encouraging us to talk about these greater things.

Take the following case. Our prolife movement can make a person ask questions from us as to why we think its true. This especially comes to the forefront when speaking of “when does life begin” which becomes an actual religious question. Biology can only dictate when it begins after we determine some criterion to call life. One can easily construct a deficient definition of life that may scientifically pronounce other results.

So at this point I think we have to talk religion and then proceed to present why we are Christian. Can we do that in a way aimed toward a group? Not any more because most people today are individualists who have become trapped in different type of errors. Gone are the old days where people lived in communities and had similar thinking. So each person has to be approached one-on-one and in a personal way. I think this is all that Pope Francis is saying.

To that end, I think yes, we must be different. But in our goal and the lines we do not want to cross, we must be similar.

 

[TimothyH]

Our duty as Catholics first is to sanctify ourselves, to concentrate on the things God has placed in front of us here, now today. What the Pope said in an interview is number 97,857 on the list of things I should be interested in today.

The Sacrament of the Present Moment by Jean-Pierre De Caussade.

bks5.books.google.com/books?id=YKR6e05-EBIC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE73Rb4CGonofr7nIwGa1SFU8_xPE0VCAry3PEgI6XWvRx00IlOLmz3rODlHGPwdVOPuFQbn4c9wUxcRx_niaSlKOFKjy5u1AqEbhW8Z-7EyTrqoaNycKuPM_nx49kzFYJlii8FT8

-Tim-

 

[Country_Gal]

Our duty as Catholics first is to sanctify ourselves, to concentrate on the things God has placed in front of us here, now today. What the Pope said in an interview is number 97,857 on the list of things I should be interested in today.

The Sacrament of the Present Moment by Jean-Pierre De Caussade.

bks5.books.google.com/books?id=YKR6e05-EBIC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE73Rb4CGonofr7nIwGa1SFU8_xPE0VCAry3PEgI6XWvRx00IlOLmz3rODlHGPwdVOPuFQbn4c9wUxcRx_niaSlKOFKjy5u1AqEbhW8Z-7EyTrqoaNycKuPM_nx49kzFYJlii8FT8

-Tim-

So true!

 

[JReducation]

I think that we have to accept that different teachers, evangelists, preachers, spiritual guides, pastors and other are going to focus on different aspects of the Gospel. They don’t have to focus where I want to focus. What they cannot do is change the truth.

Very often, when you shift focus, what you’re saying may leave another idea incomplete, not because it’s your intent to ignore it or to change a truth, but simply because it’s not on your map at the moment.

A good way to understand this is to look at the different schools of theology and spirituality in the Church. Tomorrow, we celebrate the anniversary of St. Francis passing into glory. Observe how I said this. As a Franciscan, that’s what it means to us. To everyone else it’s the Feast of St. Francis. Does that mean that others deny that he passed into glory? No. Does it mean the same as Christ’s passing into glory? No.

If you read the rules of St. Francis, his letters, his admonitions and observe his actions and the way that he organized his three orders, his focus is not on converting non Catholics as some radical traditionalists would like to make it, just because he made one trip to the Middle East. That trip to the Middle East has to be understood in context. Francis understood that war, hatred, violence and conflicts could only be conquered by Christ. He sets out to teach Christ to the Mohammedans. There is no indication in his report to his brothers that he considered the Christians above the Muslims or that he considered the Muslims to be evil people or felt anything but affection for them.

He returns to Europe without having converted the Sultan. We don’t know if he converted anyone at all. But we know that he did not convert the sultan. However, he came back with something that opened the door for future conversions. He came back with an agreement between himself and the Muslims of Egypt that allowed the Franciscans passage through their territory to Jerusalem and it also allowed the Franciscans to take custody of the Christian holy places in Palestine and Jordan, something which neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic patriarchs of Jerusalem had managed to get out of the Muslims. The Muslims would not surrender these places to their control. To this day, the Franciscans are the custodians of the Holy Land and the Franciscan Custos is respected by the local government, probably more than the two patriarchs.

On the other hand, we have St. Vincent Ferrer, the famous Dominican Friar who converted thousands of Jews in Spain. He went there with the intent to convert the Spanish Jews not to stop a war or to gain access to holy sites, but for their salvation and edification. Would Francis see this as a futile task? No he would not. Yet, Franciscans had been in Spain for several centuries and had made no attempt to convert the Jews or Muslims in Spain, because it was not part of their vision of Evangelization.

The Dominican vision of Evangelization was to bring heretics and non Christians to the Truth. The Franciscan vision of Evangelization was to bring Catholics to embrace a poverty and penance (detachment). Later came the Jesuits and the tripod was complete.

St. Ignatius admired the missionary spirit of the Dominican Friars, but he also wanted to imitate the simplicity and fraternal spirit of the Franciscans. He combines the two and the Holy Spirit used his effort to bring forth a new religious family in the Church with a missionary spirit like that of the Dominicans, a simplicity like that of the Franciscans and one more thing that no one had ever seen, autonomy from Church structures in order to do what each Jesuit felt was necessary in whatever situation he found himself. In other words, no uniformity of religious life.

Are any of these superior to the other? Not at all. Are any superfluous? Not at all. They are gifts that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church.

If we take these examples that are part of our Catholic tradition and apply them to our popes, we may find that we can live with the idea that each of them has a different mission, but all of these missions are equally important to the life of the Church and the salvation of humanity and each has a “method to his madness” just like the fathers of the great religious movements had mission, vision and method.

The Christian reality is so huge that there is no way that any single man can present it all, much less in great depth and detail. Each presents a piece of the whole. Our eyes and ears must focus on the piece that the teacher wants us to hear and not on what the teacher has no intention of addressing at this point in time.

To end my stream of consciousness, I would add that I agree with Pope Francis 100% regarding what he said about abortion, homosexuaity and contraception. As the superior of a pro-life community and diocesan coordinator of a pro-life ministry, I often find myself correcting our brothers and our volunteers, because they are so passionate about these issues that they pay no heed to other issues. To the casual observer, they give the false impression that to be Catholic is to be antiabortion, antihomosexuality, anticontraception.

So what happened to love, mercy, penance, prayer, Church, charity, sacraments, and all the other parts of Catholicism?

Two weeks ago, I had to ORDER our volunteers to change their schedule to pray at abortion mills, just one day and attend the mass and prayer service for peace in Syria. They thought I was nuts. I had to explain that to save a child from abortion so that someone can blow his head off with shrapnel was not much of an accomplishment. We must save lives so that they can be lived for Christ, not sacrificed to the culture of death on a different altar.

 

[Nita]

Mt. 18:12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 18:13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 18:14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.IMO, the above Scripture describes Pope Francis’ mission (not sure “mission” is the right word, but can’t think of a better one at the moment)… The Pope speaks of how best to evangelize those who have strayed from or are not part of the fold, – not what/how to preach to the 99 faithful. He is seeking the lost sheep.

 

[AndyP2010]

Jaberwocky

A very humble post and brave as well.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think that we have to accept that different teachers, evangelists, preachers, spiritual guides, pastors and other are going to focus on different aspects of the Gospel. They don’t have to focus where I want to focus. What they cannot do is change the truth.

Very often, when you shift focus, what you’re saying may leave another idea incomplete, not because it’s your intent to ignore it or to change a truth, but simply because it’s not on your map at the moment.
The Dominican vision of Evangelization was to bring heretics and non Christians to the Truth. The Franciscan vision of Evangelization was to bring Catholics to embrace a poverty and penance (detachment). Later came the Jesuits and the tripod was complete.

St. Ignatius admired the missionary spirit of the Dominican Friars, but he also wanted to imitate the simplicity and fraternal spirit of the Franciscans. He combines the two and the Holy Spirit used his effort to bring forth a new religious family in the Church with a missionary spirit like that of the Dominicans, a simplicity like that of the Franciscans and one more thing that no one had ever seen, autonomy from Church structures in order to do what each Jesuit felt was necessary in whatever situation he found himself. In other words, no uniformity of religious life.

Are any of these superior to the other? Not at all. Are any superfluous? Not at all. They are gifts that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church.

If we take these examples that are part of our Catholic tradition and apply them to our popes, we may find that we can live with the idea that each of them has a different mission, but all of these missions are equally important to the life of the Church and the salvation of humanity and each has a “method to his madness” just like the fathers of the great religious movements had mission, vision and method.

The Christian reality is so huge that there is no way that any single man can present it all, much less in great depth and detail. Each presents a piece of the whole. Our eyes and ears must focus on the piece that the teacher wants us to hear and not on what the teacher has no intention of addressing at this point in time.

To end my stream of consciousness, I would add that I agree with Pope Francis 100% regarding what he said about abortion, homosexuaity and contraception. As the superior of a pro-life community and diocesan coordinator of a pro-life ministry, I often find myself correcting our brothers and our volunteers, because they are so passionate about these issues that they pay no heed to other issues. To the casual observer, they give the false impression that to be Catholic is to be antiabortion, antihomosexuality, anticontraception.

So what happened to love, mercy, penance, prayer, Church, charity, sacraments, and all the other parts of Catholicism?

Two weeks ago, I had to ORDER our volunteers to change their schedule to pray at abortion mills, just one day and attend the mass and prayer service for peace in Syria. They thought I was nuts. I had to explain that to save a child from abortion so that someone can blow his head off with shrapnel was not much of an accomplishment. We must save lives so that they can be lived for Christ, not sacrificed to the culture of death on a different altar.*

Definitely agree with you.

I guess why many people would find the abortion comment unnerving is because everyone agrees that we need peace in Syria and that the death of people by terrorists attacks are evil. I could read the comment section of National Post and see unanimous condemnation of a terrorist attack.

But if I were to go to an article on abortion, I am more likely to see comments that say “It’s just a fetus”, “It’s not a child”, “Its the right of a woman”, “Woman’s body, not yours” etc and it will be more like a 90% pro-abortion - 10% anti-abortion split. With homosexual marriages and transgender issues the difference is even more telling. There have been times when I am the only commenter on some of the newspapers trying to battle it out and just give up due to the growing opposition.

What I mean to say is that not everyone needs to interpret the Holy Father as saying we need to balance out our talk on abortion with peace in Syria. I personally would rather interpret it in the Orthodox and traditional sense that Pope Francis is saying evangelize them to cover all birds from one stone. That is the Orthodox position among many that I am drawn to. St. Paul didn’t go to Athens or Rome and speak about why their orgies, wars or other things were wrong. He spoke of Christ and evangelized. Then he taught those who accepted Christ the morals and how immorality had no part in Christian life.

So that is how I have come to interpret Pope Francis’s words on that matter. You would interpret it differently and I think that doesn’t matter at the end of the day as you said. There is a place for different charisms in the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Definitely agree with you.

I guess why many people would find the abortion comment unnerving is because everyone agrees that we need peace in Syria and that the death of people by terrorists attacks are evil. I could read the comment section of National Post and see unanimous condemnation of a terrorist attack.

But if I were to go to an article on abortion, I am more likely to see comments that say “It’s just a fetus”, “It’s not a child”, “Its the right of a woman”, “Woman’s body, not yours” etc and it will be more like a 90% pro-abortion - 10% anti-abortion split. With homosexual marriages and transgender issues the difference is even more telling. There have been times when I am the only commenter on some of the newspapers trying to battle it out and just give up due to the growing opposition.

What I mean to say is that not everyone needs to interpret the Holy Father as saying we need to balance out our talk on abortion with peace in Syria. I personally would rather interpret it in the Orthodox and traditional sense that Pope Francis is saying evangelize them to cover all birds from one stone. That is the Orthodox position among many that I am drawn to. St. Paul didn’t go to Athens or Rome and speak about why their orgies, wars or other things were wrong. He spoke of Christ and evangelized. Then he taught those who accepted Christ the morals and how immorality had no part in Christian life.

So that is how I have come to interpret Pope Francis’s words on that matter. You would interpret it differently and I think that doesn’t matter at the end of the day as you said. There is a place for different charisms in the Church.

I agree with you 100%. I used the Syria example, because it’s fresh in people’s minds. But the truth is that the pope is really saying what Bl. John Paul said in Evangelium Vitae. It’s very interesting. If you ask anyone about Evangelium Vitae, they’ll tell you that it’s about abortion. The truth is that abortion does not come up until the middle of the encyclical. Evangelium Vitae is about the Gospel of Life. It’s not a one issue encyclical. I believe that this is where Pope Francis may even feel annoyed with the press. Everyone wants to know his position on abortion, homosexuality and contraception as if these were the only questions in the Catholic catechism. The more I think about the use of the word, “obsess” the more I wonder if that term could be equally applied to the media, not just to some very passionate pro-life workers.

You know what, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the Holy Father was not describing just Catholics, but today’s culture. We’re obsessed with these three issues, so much so that we take them out of context. We want to begin every conversation on Truth with these three topics and forget that Truth begins with Christ. An understanding of Christ and a relationship with Christ is necessary for a proper understanding of these issues. Otherwise, the discussion quickly degenerates into politics. I guess that’s why he said that he does not do politics. Hmmmm . . .

 

[choliks]

Definitely agree with you.

I guess why many people would find the abortion comment unnerving is because everyone agrees that we need peace in Syria and that the death of people by terrorists attacks are evil. I could read the comment section of National Post and see unanimous condemnation of a terrorist attack.

But if I were to go to an article on abortion, I am more likely to see comments that say “It’s just a fetus”, “It’s not a child”, “Its the right of a woman”, “Woman’s body, not yours” etc and it will be more like a 90% pro-abortion - 10% anti-abortion split. With homosexual marriages and transgender issues the difference is even more telling. There have been times when I am the only commenter on some of the newspapers trying to battle it out and just give up due to the growing opposition.

What I mean to say is that not everyone needs to interpret the Holy Father as saying we need to balance out our talk on abortion with peace in Syria. I personally would rather interpret it in the Orthodox and traditional sense that Pope Francis is saying evangelize them to cover all birds from one stone. That is the Orthodox position among many that I am drawn to. St. Paul didn’t go to Athens or Rome and speak about why their orgies, wars or other things were wrong. He spoke of Christ and evangelized. Then he taught those who accepted Christ the morals and how immorality had no part in Christian life.

So that is how I have come to interpret Pope Francis’s words on that matter. You would interpret it differently and I think that doesn’t matter at the end of the day as you said. There is a place for different charisms in the Church.

I agree with you 100%. I used the Syria example, because it’s fresh in people’s minds. But the truth is that the pope is really saying what Bl. John Paul said in Evangelium Vitae. It’s very interesting. If you ask anyone about Evangelium Vitae, they’ll tell you that it’s about abortion. The truth is that abortion does not come up until the middle of the encyclical. Evangelium Vitae is about the Gospel of Life. It’s not a one issue encyclical. I believe that this is where Pope Francis may even feel annoyed with the press. Everyone wants to know his position on abortion, homosexuality and contraception as if these were the only questions in the Catholic catechism. The more I think about the use of the word, “obsess” the more I wonder if that term could be equally applied to the media, not just to some very passionate pro-life workers.

You know what, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the Holy Father was not describing just Catholics, but today’s culture. We’re obsessed with these three issues, so much so that we take them out of context. We want to begin every conversation on Truth with these three topics and forget that Truth begins with Christ. An understanding of Christ and a relationship with Christ is necessary for a proper understanding of these issues. Otherwise, the discussion quickly degenerates into politics. I guess that’s why he said that he does not do politics. Hmmmm . . .

Here’s how i see obsession over an issue…
youtube.com/watch?v=bKLQBuSPVwQ

 

[agnes_therese]

Jaberwocky

A very humble post and brave as well.

Ditto.

 

[Origen52]

I think, if there is a “problem” with understanding his holiness it stems from two sources. First, he’s a Jesuit, and as JR has mentioned several times, they have a very different approach to spirituality. I have had some experience with Jesuits, and often, when I’ve heard them lecture, or spoken personally, my first reaction has been, “you said what!” Not being a shy type, I’ve questioned, or argued with, a few Jesuits. Their approach to spirituality is not one I’d choose, but “one body many parts”.
Second, his holiness converses well in Italian, but to a native speaker it is clear that it is not a language with which he is fully at ease. The level of his vocabulary, his sentence structure, and his syntax do not flow easily. I think that’s why, sometimes when he speaks extemporaneously, what he says is a bit “cloudy”.
All that being said if the church was able to survive the pontificate of Alexander VI, it can survive anything. For those who find it is not possible to fully agree with Pope Francis, there is nothing in the Catechism which impels you to do so. There’s an interesting article on catholic news service which clearly explains this point.

In interviews, Pope Francis crafts a new genre of papal language

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1304164.htm

 

[shelby_sun]

Definitely agree with you.

I guess why many people would find the abortion comment unnerving is because everyone agrees that we need peace in Syria and that the death of people by terrorists attacks are evil. I could read the comment section of National Post and see unanimous condemnation of a terrorist attack.

But if I were to go to an article on abortion, I am more likely to see comments that say “It’s just a fetus”, “It’s not a child”, “Its the right of a woman”, “Woman’s body, not yours” etc and it will be more like a 90% pro-abortion - 10% anti-abortion split. With homosexual marriages and transgender issues the difference is even more telling. There have been times when I am the only commenter on some of the newspapers trying to battle it out and just give up due to the growing opposition.

What I mean to say is that not everyone needs to interpret the Holy Father as saying we need to balance out our talk on abortion with peace in Syria. I personally would rather interpret it in the Orthodox and traditional sense that Pope Francis is saying evangelize them to cover all birds from one stone. That is the Orthodox position among many that I am drawn to. St. Paul didn’t go to Athens or Rome and speak about why their orgies, wars or other things were wrong. He spoke of Christ and evangelized. Then he taught those who accepted Christ the morals and how immorality had no part in Christian life.

So that is how I have come to interpret Pope Francis’s words on that matter. You would interpret it differently and I think that doesn’t matter at the end of the day as you said. There is a place for different charisms in the Church.

I think who the abortion issue unnerved were those people who take the time to go out and protest at abortion clinics and those who spend much of their time praying to end abortions. Although I am not pro-choice, that issue is not my focus so, I saw nothing wrong in what The Pope said, but I am sure I would have if a great deal of time was spent on that. It seems people felt the Pope abandoned their cause, which he did not. People must understand how many serious issue there are in the world and the Pope is trying not to neglect any of them.

My husband works in a crime lab so in my daily life I hear of numerous other terrible evils going on in the world, none more or less important than abortion. We need to thank God for all the wonderful people around the world trying to make the world a better place in many different ways.

 

[clem456]

St Francis De Sales wrote letters of Spiritual direction to various people.
I began reading his letters about 4 years ago and could not connect with them. I thought they were too simple.
Picking them up again recently, they speak to our current situation very well.

He wrote a letter to Madame Brulart, who was occupied with concern over “the rules of devotion being precisely observed” and doing the right things in her journey to holiness. This quote really speaks to me of simplicity, of dealing with what God provides us, right in front of our noses, and not getting sidetracked with issues we have no control over. The whole letter is helpful in this way. Here is one section:

“I advise you to take the trouble now and then to visit hospitals, to comfort the sick, and to have compassion for their infirmities, letting these touch your heart; and pray for the sick even as you give them whatever help you can. But in all this, be very careful that your husband, your servants, and your relatives be not inconvenienced by overly long visits to church, by too lengthy withdrawals to pray and noticeable neglect of your household responsibilities or, as sometimes happens, by your trying to control the actions of others, or showing too much disdain for gatherings where the rules of devotion are not precisely observed. In all these instances charity must prevail and enlighten us so that we yield to the wishes of our neighbor in whatever is not contrary to the commandments of God.”
St. Francis de Sales (May 3, 1604 to Madame Brulart)
Francis De Sales, Jane De Chantal: Letters of Spiritual Direction (Classics of Western Spirituality)

I find that I crave this simplicity, this ability to let go of things beyond my horizon. I wish I knew how to cultivate it.

 

[shelby_sun]

I think, if there is a “problem” with understanding his holiness it stems from two sources. First, he’s a Jesuit, and as JR has mentioned several times, they have a very different approach to spirituality. I have had some experience with Jesuits, and often, when I’ve heard them lecture, or spoken personally, my first reaction has been, “you said what!” Not being a shy type, I’ve questioned, or argued with, a few Jesuits. Their approach to spirituality is not one I’d choose, but “one body many parts”.
Second, his holiness converses well in Italian, but to a native speaker it is clear that it is not a language with which he is fully at ease. The level of his vocabulary, his sentence structure, and his syntax do not flow easily. I think that’s why, sometimes when he speaks extemporaneously, what he says is a bit “cloudy”.
All that being said if the church was able to survive the pontificate of Alexander VI, it can survive anything. For those who find it is not possible to fully agree with Pope Francis, there is nothing in the Catechism which impels you to do so. There’s an interesting article on catholic news service which clearly explains this point.

In interviews, Pope Francis crafts a new genre of papal language

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1304164.htm

Being around The Jesuits on a daily basis I am pretty sure that there will be many people, some on this site, that will never come around to embracing Pope Francis, but I find it sad that there are some trying “to survive” while he is our Pope. They are obviously not trying to see all the good and Godly things about him, which there are many.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think who the abortion issue unnerved were those people who take the time to go out and protest at abortion clinics and those who spend much of their time praying to end abortions. Although I am not pro-choice, that issue is not my focus so, I saw nothing wrong in what The Pope said, but I am sure I would have if a great deal of time was spent on that. It seems people felt the Pope abandoned their cause, which he did not. People must understand how many serious issue there are in the world and the Pope is trying not to neglect any of them.

My husband works in a crime lab so in my daily life I hear of numerous other terrible evils going on in the world, none more or less important than abortion. We need to thank God for all the wonderful people around the world trying to make the world a better place in many different ways.

Well I for one have not attended a single Pro-life rally or Vigil. But I do speak out about it whenever there is a promotion/normalization of abortion among someone I meet.

The problem I had and many others I know like me is that Abortion is considered OK by the world and the global push exists. Other issues like peace in Syria are considered by all to be WRONG.

So when one gets told that Pope Francis meant to say is that you have to stop worrying about Abortion so much and start talking about peace in Syria, that rightfully comes across as ignorant and wrong.

That is why I take the most closest Orthodox meaning that Pope Francis is asking us to evangelize others instead of concentrating on moral issues alone. Moral Law will mean something more when one has converted to the faith. So our first and foremost effort must be toward converting the world rather than concentrating on a temporal issue.

 

[Jaberwocky]

St Francis De Sales wrote letters of Spiritual direction to various people.
I began reading his letters about 4 years ago and could not connect with them. I thought they were too simple.
Picking them up again recently, they speak to our current situation very well.

He wrote a letter to Madame Brulart, who was occupied with concern over “the rules of devotion being precisely observed” and doing the right things in her journey to holiness. This quote really speaks to me of simplicity, of dealing with what God provides us, right in front of our noses, and not getting sidetracked with issues we have no control over. The whole letter is helpful in this way. Here is one section:

I find that I crave this simplicity, this ability to let go of things beyond my horizon. I wish I knew how to cultivate it.

Yes, but you have to remember that St. Francis De Sales is speaking of a different time. When he speaks of devotions not precisely observed, I am sure he is not speaking of the lack of observation we witness today in our Parishes.

My Parish for an example is a Marian one but has a very hostile attitude toward any Marian devotions. My Parish has also taken a policy to never mention morals (I kid you not). Only thing ever mentioned is to be happy. Even when helping the poor is mentioned, that is mentioned in the sense that “You are all such great people and this is not even worth telling you about”. The work of salvation is implied to have already been complete and the Eucharist is simply a spiritual restaurant meal we attend every Sunday.

When one hears this, I think one should rightfully be filled with a Holy Anger. The Spiritual Charity in such Churches are non-existent and there is harm caused to Spiritual Charity by negligence as well as incorrect instruction. That should anger a person, not because it has offended them but because it offends God.