Pope Francis "No More Business as Usual"

[esieffe]

12/3/13
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/?hpt=hp_t1

Pope Francis “No More Business as Usual”

Pope Francis goes into more depth about his outreach vision for the Church in her ministry to the poor. My deep appreciation and love for the Holy Father seems to increase with every
word he utters.

 

[edwest2]

I feel the same.

God bless Pope Francis,

Ed

 

[SuperLuigi]

12/3/13
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/?hpt=hp_t1

Pope Francis “No More Business as Usual”

Pope Francis goes into more depth about his outreach vision for the Church in her ministry to the poor. My deep appreciation and love for the Holy Father seems to increase with every
word he utters.

Yeah, we’ll see what the reaction is when people realize he’s talking about individual giving and not cheap arm-chair, couch charity where you show up at the polls in the West every few years to vote for false promises and policies that fail the poor and do nothing but make the fortunate feel good expecting corrupt government to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The Pope also hinted that he wants to see an end to the so-called “wafer wars,” in which Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are denied Holy Communion. His comments could also be taken as another sign that he plans to reform church rules that prevent divorced Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. (from the linked article)

In one passage that could have implications for clerics who refuse to offer Communion to divorced people or to politicians who support abortion rights, he writes that the Eucharist, the central rite of Catholicism, “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (from an L.A. times article)

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding, it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Pope also hinted that he wants to see an end to the so-called “wafer wars,” in which Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are denied Holy Communion. His comments could also be taken as another sign that he plans to reform church rules that prevent divorced Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. (from the linked article)

In one passage that could have implications for clerics who refuse to offer Communion to divorced people or to politicians who support abortion rights, he writes that the Eucharist, the central rite of Catholicism, “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (from an L.A. times article)

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding, it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

Answer: Yes, he is. And yes, I am very disturbed by it, as I am disturbed by the heterodoxy of much of what he has said since election.

 

[saveusfromhell]

The Pope also hinted that he wants to see an end to the so-called “wafer wars,” in which Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are denied Holy Communion. His comments could also be taken as another sign that he plans to reform church rules that prevent divorced Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. (from the linked article)

In one passage that could have implications for clerics who refuse to offer Communion to divorced people or to politicians who support abortion rights, he writes that the Eucharist, the central rite of Catholicism, “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (from an L.A. times article)

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding, it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

if its true yes it would be extremely disturbing

 

[BernadetteM]

It appears this information regarding pro abortionists and divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion comes from the secular press.

If you read what he said on a legitimate Catholic site, the Holy Father does not condone this.

We must be careful as the media is misrepresenting much of what the Pope says.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[ProVobis]

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing?

I find it disturbing that the twitters coming from Rome say slightly different things in different languages. How binding is it when you have this situation?

 

[Cat]

I find it disturbing that the twitters coming from Rome say slightly different things in different languages. How binding is it when you have this situation?

Yes, I agree.

I’m floored that at this time in history, translation skills have not advanced enough to be able to accurately present the Pope’s words in the world’s languages.

I’m not sure anymore what the Pope has actually said. The comment about trickle-down economics really really bothered me a lot–but did he really mean what the American translations said that he meant? Maybe he should stop talking entirely, and just DO. It wouldn’t be unheard of in Catholic tradition, would it?

 

[TRH1292]

The Pope also hinted that he wants to see an end to the so-called “wafer wars,” in which Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are denied Holy Communion. His comments could also be taken as another sign that he plans to reform church rules that prevent divorced Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. (from the linked article)

In one passage that could have implications for clerics who refuse to offer Communion to divorced people or to politicians who support abortion rights, he writes that the Eucharist, the central rite of Catholicism, “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (from an L.A. times article)

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding, it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

I highly doubt it, considering he was insistent that those politicians who support abortion could not receive the Eucharist when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

 

[OraLabora]

In one passage that could have implications for clerics who refuse to offer Communion to divorced people or to politicians who support abortion rights, he writes that the Eucharist, the central rite of Catholicism, “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (from an L.A. times article)

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding, it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

I think the answer to your fear lies in the your statement that I bolded above.

I think we can agree that remarried divorced couples are objectively committing grave sin. The subjective culpability though, as you probably know, requires the other two components of full knowledge and full consent. Quite possibly, on a pastoral level, he’s thinking that at some level full consent is lacking due to external factors, i.e. the pressures on a remarried couple to “live as brother and sister” may simply be more than they can bear, which would play on the notion of full consent.

Or it could be that he’s looking at what constitutes the grounds for a decree of nullity, thinking that perhaps in our era, many more marriages than was previously thought are not, in fact, valid, as I believe a Cardinal (I forget which one), has suggested.

Whatever the way this will play out, I try to not let such things bother me. I prefer to put my trust in God who made us a promise through St. Peter to protect the Church and the Holy Father from doctrinal error, and work on my own salvation.

 

[TRH1292]

Yes, I agree.

I’m floored that at this time in history, translation skills have not advanced enough to be able to accurately present the Pope’s words in the world’s languages.

I’m not sure anymore what the Pope has actually said. The comment about trickle-down economics really really bothered me a lot–but did he really mean what the American translations said that he meant? Maybe he should stop talking entirely, and just DO. It wouldn’t be unheard of in Catholic tradition, would it?

Come on. Read the document, this is not hard. The Holy Father speaks about economics through the whole document, it becomes extremely apparent as to what he is saying, as he speaks about the market several times.

An unfettered/unfair free market has never been apart of Catholic teaching, Pope Benedict XVI spoke against the same things several times. As have other Pope’s. The only reason why this has not been stressed in america is because the American Church is infested with “Americanism” and america politics overrules the ideology and teaching of the Church.

The Holy Father has spoken against this view of economics well before he became Pope, as well.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the answer to your fear lies in the your statement that I bolded above.

I think we can agree that remarried divorced couples are objectively committing grave sin. The subjective culpability though, as you probably know, requires the other two components of full knowledge and full consent. Quite possibly, on a pastoral level, he’s thinking that at some level full consent is lacking due to external factors, i.e. the pressures on a remarried couple to “live as brother and sister” may simply be more than they can bear, which would play on the notion of full consent.

Or it could be that he’s looking at what constitutes the grounds for a decree of nullity, thinking that perhaps in our era, many more marriages than was previously thought are not, in fact, valid, as I believe a Cardinal (I forget which one), has suggested.

Whatever the way this will play out, I try to not let such things bother me. I prefer to put my trust in God who made us a promise through St. Peter to protect the Church and the Holy Father from doctrinal error, and work on my own salvation.

The distinction between objective sin and subjective culpability is an extremely important distinction that many don’t understand. I had never considered it until it was pointed out to me. I am glad that you brought it up.

For those reading, as an example, consider the two women below.

One is a married, middle-aged, upper-middle class, Catholic women with three children who gets pregnant. She knows abortion is a sin but does not want the burden of another child and so aborts. The other is a poor, rural, teenage girl who’s father is an alcoholic and her mother never takes her to Church. She gets pregnant and is scared to death. Her boyfriend tells her that she can’t possibly raise the child, that it will ruin her life if she becomes a teenage mom and pressures her into an abortion.

Abortion is objectively sinful. Both sin. But both do not have the same culpability - both do not bear the same blame. The middle ages Catholic mother bears more blame than the non-churchgoing teenager.

-Tim-

 

[seekerz]

Yeah, we’ll see what the reaction is when people realize he’s talking about individual giving and not cheap arm-chair, couch charity where you show up at the polls in the West every few years to vote for false promises and policies that fail the poor and do nothing but make the fortunate feel good expecting corrupt government to do all the heavy lifting.

Can you direct me to the part where he differentiates and holds up one form of giving over another?

 

[clem456]

Come on. Read the document, this is not hard. The Holy Father speaks about economics through the whole document, it becomes extremely apparent as to what he is saying, as he speaks about the market several times.

An unfettered/unfair free market has never been apart of Catholic teaching, Pope Benedict XVI spoke against the same things several times. As have other Pope’s. The only reason why this has not been stressed in america is because the American Church is infested with “Americanism” and america politics overrules the ideology and teaching of the Church.

The Holy Father has spoken against this view of economics well before he became Pope, as well.

I agree with this. What the Pope says is clear .
We see the world through a political lens. Politics advocates specific agendas. The Pope does not advocate for political positions. It’s hard, for me anyway, to set aside my biases when reading these documents and just accept the pastoral guidance for what it’s worth.

 

[Rich_C]

Yes, I agree.

I’m floored that at this time in history, translation skills have not advanced enough to be able to accurately present the Pope’s words in the world’s languages.

I’m not sure anymore what the Pope has actually said. The comment about trickle-down economics really really bothered me a lot–but did he really mean what the American translations said that he meant? Maybe he should stop talking entirely, and just DO. It wouldn’t be unheard of in Catholic tradition, would it?

I know what you mean. The papacy has never been under such a microscope before–I mean, same-day translations of instantaneous electronic communications? Wow. That’s a demand that barely dates back five years.

I try to approach the papacy in a more traditional mode. I just ignore the holy father (I don’t mean this disrespectfully) until he “asks” me to pay attention. I figure most of the time he isn’t addressing “me,” so to speak.

I just wait until I hear about the “Year of X” or a new encyclical (or–and this hasn’t happened in my life–a new dogma) and even then I usually wait a few months to see what the U.S. bishops or my parish priest says about it. They distill the important parts so I don’t have to read these things myself. I really don’t have time to read encyclicals anyway.

Whenever I break from this approach, I seem to end up in the wrong.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think the answer to your fear lies in the your statement that I bolded above.

I think we can agree that remarried divorced couples are objectively committing grave sin. The subjective culpability though, as you probably know, requires the other two components of full knowledge and full consent. Quite possibly, on a pastoral level, he’s thinking that at some level full consent is lacking due to external factors, i.e. the pressures on a remarried couple to “live as brother and sister” may simply be more than they can bear, which would play on the notion of full consent.

Or it could be that he’s looking at what constitutes the grounds for a decree of nullity, thinking that perhaps in our era, many more marriages than was previously thought are not, in fact, valid, as I believe a Cardinal (I forget which one), has suggested.

I would actually agree with the bolded statement. Most people–sadly, it seems even most Catholics–have a very naive and selfish idea of what marriage is supposed to be.

But what concerns me more is the implication that politicians who support abortion rights (and have been repeatedly reprimanded by Church leaders for doing so) would be allowed to receive the Eucharist. Not only does that, in my assessment, condone their blaspheming the Eucharist, it would serve to scandalize the laity and further degrade the general understanding of and reverence shown to the Eucharist.

Again, though, I am keeping good faith that this is all a secular distortion of the Holy Father’s words.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Ok, so I finally did the logical thing and went to the Vatican website and read the exhortation for myself. I can now verify that my suspicions were correct. Here is the concerned passage in its entirety:

47. The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

There is no mention of any of the particular things the secular press references (i.e., communion for public officials who support abortion rights), and in fact the language I have highlighted suggests to me a need to carefully consider such cases as may require restriction. So, to those of you who shared my concerns, I think we can collectively breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[clem456]

I know what you mean. The papacy has never been under such a microscope before–I mean, same-day translations of instantaneous electronic communications? Wow. That’s a demand that barely dates back five years.

I try to approach the papacy in a more traditional mode. I just ignore the holy father (I don’t mean this disrespectfully) until he “asks” me to pay attention. I figure most of the time he isn’t addressing “me,” so to speak.

I just wait until I hear about the “Year of X” or a new encyclical (or–and this hasn’t happened in my life–a new dogma) and even then I usually wait a few months to see what the U.S. bishops or my parish priest says about it. They distill the important parts so I don’t have to read these things myself. I really don’t have time to read encyclicals anyway.

Whenever I break from this approach, I seem to end up in the wrong.

well said Rich

 

[ProVobis]

Come on. Read the document, this is not hard.

The point is which version should we read? The Spanish one, Italian one, what? You pick up an English translation and assume it’s the truth? The term “Trickle-down” is an American expression; do you think the Pope only talks about Americans? Or, if one can expand this argument further, are Americans are the only ones who can bail out the Vatican or Italian banks if need be?