Pope Francis says ‘clarity of doctrine’ not enough on the family

[gilliam]

During a Q&A session towards the end of the meeting, Francis spoke of a “pastoral cruelty,” such as priests who refuse to baptize the children of young single mothers.
“They’re animals,” he said. “This is individualism.”

[It’s] “an individualism which doesn’t affect only priests, but society as a whole, that looks for pleasure, that is hedonist, searching for that ‘damned’ well-being which has hurt us so much,” he said. [Francis used the word maledeto, in quotation marks].

Francis once again complained of those who, beginning with the culture of well-being 20 years ago, chose to have three cats or a dog instead of children. Jokingly he added, “don’t tell the animal welfare societies because I don’t want to offend anyone!”

A pet, he said, will give affection, but children would become free people.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/pope-francis-says-clarity-doctrine-not-enough-family/

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Are the parishioners going to embrace the single mother and her child in their relationships (the dirty R-word again) or are they going to regard them as sullying the social purity of their “designer accessory parish”?

In detail, the mother and child could be enrolled for RCIA/RCIC. This is indeed precisely what was done in my neighbourhood a few months ago!

The Church no longer expands by the means it did 100 years ago. We now have to adapt to waifs and strays (who might turn out to have the best gifts).

 

[Upgrade25]

As long as the mother plans to raise the kid Catholic. That’s why I was furious when someone one-rated my parish for being told that she had to plead her case to Father before baptizing the kid(she was divorced according to review. I’m not sure of the circumstances). Then she called it … Archaic.

 

[2PT3]

I am going to guess that the vast majority of priests who deny baptism to infants (and I also be this happens very rarely) don’t do so because they are cold-hearted “animals” (Pope Francis’ word) but because they are following canon law and are loyal sons of the Church. Canon law says that there must be at least a reasonable basis to believe the infant will be raised Catholic in order for the priest to baptize them. I am really distressed by Pope Francis’ constant denigration of priests.

 

[twf]

I am going to guess that the vast majority of priests who deny baptism to infants (and I also be this happens very rarely) don’t do so because they are cold-hearted “animals” (Pope Francis’ word) but because they are following canon law and are loyal sons of the Church. Canon law says that there must be at least a reasonable basis to believe the infant will be raised Catholic in order for the priest to baptize them. I am really distressed by Pope Francis’ constant denigration of priests.

As far as I can recall, our holy father has only condemned two groups of people with any frequency: the rich who oppress the poor (which Our Lord was also very vocal about) and “cold, heartless, cruel” priests. I don’t know what experiences led our holy father to believe the latter is a widespread problem, but apparently he believes it is. I personally have been blessed to encounter an endless army of self-sacrificial, kind, warm priests… if anything, I feel priests are generally waaaaay too soft on me in the confessional.

 

[OraLabora]

I am going to guess that the vast majority of priests who deny baptism to infants (and I also be this happens very rarely) don’t do so because they are cold-hearted “animals” (Pope Francis’ word) but because they are following canon law and are loyal sons of the Church. Canon law says that there must be at least a reasonable basis to believe the infant will be raised Catholic in order for the priest to baptize them. I am really distressed by Pope Francis’ constant denigration of priests.

“Reasonable basis” is not a hard and fast definition. One can presume that if a mother wants her child baptized in the Church, there is such a “reasonable basis”. I think this is one of those areas where one should err on the side of baptism as a soul is at stake.

I don’t know what experiences led our holy father to believe the latter is a widespread problem, but apparently he believes it is.

He had a big problem with this in his own archdiocese before becoming Pope. He mentioned it some time ago.

 

[otjm]

In 70 years, I have had the privilege of knowing many priests. Some were fantastic. And several (as in, more than two, but not many) fit right in with what the Pope is saying.

One can look at the law positively or negatively. One can search for signs that the parents do intend - perhaps even with a weak intent and not a little confusion - to raise the child Catholic.

One can also search through the conversation(s), searching for any sign that the parent might not raise the child Catholic, and then refuse to baptize.

I have met more than one rigorist in my life, although certainly not huge numbers of them. Given there are somewhere around 414,000 priests world wide, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are priests to whom he is legitimately - and wisely - challenging.

 

[abucs]

I am going to guess that the vast majority of priests who deny baptism to infants (and I also be this happens very rarely) don’t do so because they are cold-hearted “animals” (Pope Francis’ word) but because they are following canon law and are loyal sons of the Church. Canon law says that there must be at least a reasonable basis to believe the infant will be raised Catholic in order for the priest to baptize them. I am really distressed by Pope Francis’ constant denigration of priests.

Yes there are too many vicious verbal attacks on vague clerical targets. Calling anyone an animal is very serious, especially for a pope.

 

[commenter]

He had a big problem with this in his own archdiocese before becoming Pope. He mentioned it some time ago.

OK, I don’t know much about Argentina. Where I live in the US, I have never heard about a priest refusing to baptize a baby. I have not heard about priests who are cruel or insensitive to single parents.

I don’t deny the value of his experience, and I am sure it applies to some priests in all countries. But far more common is the experience of priests, and even more so sisters, who are indifferent on prolife. The policy seems to be that this is one issue out of 100, so it deserves 1% of our attention. Maybe the pope did not observe that problem much in Argentina, but his advisors should take into account, and communicate the pastoral needs of countries where he did not live.

 

[Brendan]

Yes there are too many vicious verbal attacks on vague clerical targets. Calling anyone an animal is very serious, especially for a pope.

I agree as well. He is not setting a good example of charity with such statements.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It appears he wasn’t calling priests animals, but that they treat such faithful as animals (I’ll dig up the exact translation). But it is an unfortunate choice of word nonetheless.

 

[abucs]

It appears he wasn’t calling priests animals, but that they treat such faithful as animals (I’ll dig up the exact translation). But it is an unfortunate choice of word nonetheless.

Thanks Justin. I would much prefer your scenario to be the truth.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

OK, I’m quoting Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture on this:
The Pope’s remark, made in an ad-lib response to a question, was terribly disjointed and difficult to follow. But apparently he intended to say that some priests treat children (or possibly their unwed mothers) as “animals.” He did not aim that insult at the priests themselves.
Unfortunately I don’t have a transcription of the Pope’s actual words.

Bottom line: the papal off-the-cuff affirmations are getting seriously out of hand.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

As a final point, on the off-the-cuff nature of the Pope’s remarks, Canonist Edward Peters has this interesting comment:
By the way, the notion of “impromptu” or “off-the-cuff” remarks conjures in my mind, say, a busy man who, being stopped on his way to lunch and engaged in conversation with a friend, says something he wishes he had phrased differently. But does that fairly describe Francis’ recent marriage remarks? He was the guest of honor at a major clergy conference, speaking with fellow clerics into recording equipment during a scheduled Q&A, all the while surrounded by experts and advisors. If even that setting qualifies remarks as “impromptu”, then I can only imagine that everything a pope says outside of a prepared speech read from a teleprompter must be malleable as “off-the-cuff”.

 

[Brendan]

OK, I’m quoting Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture on this:
The Pope’s remark, made in an ad-lib response to a question, was terribly disjointed and difficult to follow. But apparently he intended to say that some priests treat children (or possibly their unwed mothers) as “animals.” **He did not aim that insult at the priests themselves.
**Unfortunately I don’t have a transcription of the Pope’s actual words.

Bottom line: the papal off-the-cuff affirmations are getting seriously out of hand.

I really don’t see much difference in saying that the priests are animals, or that they treat others as animals.

Either is still an insult to priests.

If a school administrator had said to a group of teachers: “You treat the children like animals”. How many would have said " Oh, thanks for the constructive criticism" vs how many would have taken it as an insult? How would such a statement impact their working relationship or inspired them to work more closely with the administrator?

 

[commenter]

I have consistently opposed those on “the Right”. I disagree with those who try to undermine Vatican II, which I support totally. I have defended Pope Francis against his critics inside the Church, or on the fringes. For 3 years I argued it is unfair to quote a pope out of context.

But now the pope or his spokesmen are constantly having to clarify, or put into context, or reframe his intent, or something, what he said yesterday. After the (non-stop) clarifications, what he said can be understood or put in context of Catholic teaching. One can read the reframe, and yeah, I can see how this fits in. I am not one of those who label him a heretic. I rely on the Magisterium to support my continuing conversion.

But at some point, you have to wonder. If everything he says, has to be reframed tomorrow, that weakens the credibility of what he says today. If his “off the cuff” remarks keep getting misinterpreted, and take attention away from his good prepared remarks, why doesn’t his staff persuade him to skip the “off the cuff” stuff?

I suspect earlier popes in this century made lots of off-the-cuff remarks that would have been controversial if they were constantly surrounded by reporters with 24/7 news channels; but they weren’t.** He is.**

I understand his style, possibly from his Jesuit background, or other sources. He presents an idea, maybe outrageous sounding; explores one POV; then he presents the opposite POV. He can say, ok, lets explore “Female Deacons”. So he will encourage people to look at this topic from one direction, then contrast that brainstorming with the other direction. Out of this dialectic may come new insights into diaconal ministry, and also roles of women in the Church, insights that are still orthodox.

But the media will grab onto one part of the dialectic, not tell people this is part of a larger process. So we don’t benefit from the long term process. We are deluged with sound bites, and he is in effect allowing that. Lots of people are impacted **only **by his off the cuff remarks taken out of context by the anti Catholic media. Isn’t he aware of that?

The pope’s public Brainstorming style may hope to reach solid conclusions at the end, but in the secular media climate, it may do harm in the meantime. I suspect earlier popes did the same brainstorming in private, with a few confidants. Then only the final result was presented to the world. I don’t know if the pope is getting bad advice from his communications specialists, or if he is not listening to them.

 

[philipl]

During a Q&A session towards the end of the meeting, Francis spoke of a “pastoral cruelty,” such as priests who refuse to baptize the children of young single mothers.
“They’re animals,” he said. “This is individualism.”

[It’s] “an individualism which doesn’t affect only priests, but society as a whole, that looks for pleasure, that is hedonist, searching for that ‘damned’ well-being which has hurt us so much,” he said. [Francis used the word maledeto, in quotation marks].

Francis once again complained of those who, beginning with the culture of well-being 20 years ago, chose to have three cats or a dog instead of children. Jokingly he added, “don’t tell the animal welfare societies because I don’t want to offend anyone!”

A pet, he said, will give affection, but children would become free people.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/pope-francis-says-clarity-doctrine-not-enough-family/

How can you become “free people” but not an individual?

 

[Brendan]

How can you become “free people” but not an individual?

You cannot, but being an individual is not the same thing as “Individualism”.

Individualism fails from the Catholic sense in that the individual is not the Moral Primary, but God is. What is best for the individual is not necessarily what is in accord with the Will of God or the Rights due to God.

The Summa Bonum of our existence, or what we are created for, and thus what is best for us, is to spend Eternity with God.

(by the same token, we are not Collectivists either, for precisely the same reason)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am going to guess that the vast majority of priests who deny baptism to infants (and I also be this happens very rarely) don’t do so because they are cold-hearted “animals” (Pope Francis’ word) but because they are following canon law and are loyal sons of the Church. Canon law says that there must be at least a reasonable basis to believe the infant will be raised Catholic in order for the priest to baptize them. I am really distressed by Pope Francis’ constant denigration of priests.

Canon law says, in English translation, that there must be a founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. A founded hope has nothing to do with the marital status of the parents…or even the parents doing anything beyond consenting. I have baptised babies where a grandparent or an aunt or uncle says, “Father, I assume responsibility to see that the child is brought to the church for Mass and religious education” and the parents are willing for the child to be raised in the faith. Knowing the grandparents/aunt/uncle/etc., I have therefore the founded hope needed and the baptism proceeds. End of matter.

As a priest, I am perfectly delighted with what the Pope is saying to me and to my confreres and I take no offense at it all…quite the opposite. There are those who urgently need to hear it. I find him invigorating and stimulating. If the priests are being pastors after the mind and heart and example of Francis himself…concerned about the marginalised and those on the periphery and if they are properly taking the measure of the law and of rubrics but always in the light of pastoral theology…then they have nothing to fear.

For priests who have less years in the ministry and see things through less pastoral and human experience, the Pope saying what he is saying, as bluntly as he is saying it, may provide them with needed new perspective on what matters and what does not matter – they are hearing it also from their brethren in their own presbyterates, as well.

As for what he has said on matters theological…from my perspective as a theologian, I have not had even a hint of concern. I think he is a tremendous gift to the Church in the 21st century. I hope he is for the Church of today and of the next 60 years what Saint John XXIII was in 1958.

 

[commenter]

“Clarity of doctrine” is necessary but not sufficient. The forgotten word in that sentence is “necessary”.
It is a false dichotomy when when people ask “what’s more important, doctrine or love?”
Actually they are not opposed to each other, but relate closely to each other. A good example is Mother Teresa, who constantly affirmed doctrinal content, but also showed “love” for all persons.

When a society loses doctrinal clarity, it does not see an increase in love. It redefines love, like the Nazis in one way, like the Communists in another way, and like modern Western societies in other ways, now. It is tempting to abolish moral absolutes, supposedly in favor of love, but people forget love is one of those moral absolutes.

We will either have both love, and doctrinal clarity; or we will have neither.