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

[irenaeus1]

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?

That’s my concern. It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend statements from this pope. Teaching is for providing instruction, guidance, direction, etc., but if the statements from the pope are so ambiguous, confusing, and unclear as to be incapable of accomplishing the actual purpose of teaching, then what?

 

[porthos11]

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.

You’d forgive us if not all of us feel that way.

Nonetheless, Popes have surprised us in the past. I might be clamoring for his canonization one day.

That is not today.

 

[commenter]

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.

A thermostat is not really pro-heat or pro-chilling. It takes into account the current
temperature of the building, then provides whatever is needed to bring things to a balance.
In 1958 most Catholics had a solid knowledge of doctrine, and even the secular society as a whole had a basic understanding of Natural Law. The problem then was that clergy would sometimes get too legalistic, that the Church sometimes forgot to present the doctrine in a loving pastoral way, respecting the nuances of individual situations.

Hence, 1958. The thermostat provided the intervention that was needed specifically to meet 1958. Thank God.

It is now 2016.

Ask yourself if Catholics in general now are familiar with the Magisterium, or have any idea of what it is. Ask yourself if secular society as a whole is just as compatible with the Natural Law (life, marriage, etc) in 2016 as it was in 1958.

Just because the thermostat triggers a welcome blast of cold air in August, does that mean it should be welcomed if it triggers the same blast of cold air in January? (Northern Hemisphere here folks!)

 

[TMC]

A thermostat is not really pro-heat or pro-chilling. It takes into account the current
temperature of the building, then provides whatever is needed to bring things to a balance.
In 1958 most Catholics had a solid knowledge of doctrine, and even the secular society as a whole had a basic understanding of Natural Law. The problem then was that clergy would sometimes get too legalistic, that the Church sometimes forgot to present the doctrine in a loving pastoral way, respecting the nuances of individual situations.

Hence, 1958. The thermostat provided the intervention that was needed specifically to meet 1958. Thank God.

It is now 2016.

Ask yourself if Catholics in general now are familiar with the Magisterium, or have any idea of what it is. Ask yourself if secular society as a whole is just as compatible with the Natural Law (life, marriage, etc) in 2016 as it was in 1958.

Just because the thermostat triggers a welcome blast of cold air in August, does that mean it should be welcomed if it triggers the same blast of cold air in January? (Northern Hemisphere here folks!)

What makes you think that Catholics had such a better understanding in the 1950s? I can tell you that my parents, aunts and uncles (raised in 40s and 50s), and grandparents were all devout Catholics, and all had a very sketchy understanding of doctrine. And they didn’t know what the word “Magisterium” meant. Most of the Catholics I know were raised in the 60s and 70s, and most have a very thin understanding of doctrine. The idea that people in the past had some in-depth theological understanding that is lacking today is mostly myth.

 

[CradleJourney]

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.

Then consider yourself fortunate. I, myself, have a very dear friend who had this happen to her and the pain, dismay and hurt are still present in her voice whenever the subject of the Church and baptism comes up. It’s been decades but the hurt is still keeping her away, though words from Pope Francis are intriguing her and possibly along with my continued prayers, may gradually be healing that injury.

(Note - I do not know, nor wish to know which priest it was, what he said word-for-word, or what he meant. I realize I only know her side. I am posting only to communicate that it does happen and real people and their children are effected.)

 

[commenter]

What makes you think that Catholics had such a better understanding in the 1950s? I can tell you that my parents, aunts and uncles (raised in 40s and 50s), and grandparents were all devout Catholics, and all had a very sketchy understanding of doctrine. And they didn’t know what the word “Magisterium” meant. Most of the Catholics I know were raised in the 60s and 70s, and most have a very thin understanding of doctrine. The idea that people in the past had some in-depth theological understanding that is lacking today is mostly myth.

You are right, people raised in the (late) 60s, and 1970s, often had a weak doctrinal foundation. I have met Catholic young adults who are angry that they spent 1970 doing touchy feely things, fluff n feelings rather than learn any specific doctrinal content. Much of what was called “Religion” class was mostly Social Studies.

There was a drastic collapse in terms of catechesis in the mid 1960s. The textbooks went through rapid dumbing down. A typical student graduating from Catholic high school or CCD in 1976 probably had much less doctrinal content than his parents when they graduated from 8th grade.

I refer mainly to religious education but also to preaching, which often drifted to whatever was in the daily newspaper rather than reinforcing doctrine, which half the pre-1960s sermons did. But I was referring to 1958, responding to the other poster. Catholics in 1958 often were solid in doctrinal knowege, with gaps here and there of course. I was talking about Catholics raised in the 1940s and 50s.

 

[TMC]

You are right, people raised in the (late) 60s, and 1970s, often had a weak doctrinal foundation. I have met Catholic young adults who are angry that they spent 1970 doing touchy feely things, fluff n feelings rather than learn any specific doctrinal content. Much of what was called “Religion” class was mostly Social Studies.

There was a drastic collapse in terms of catechesis in the mid 1960s. The textbooks went through rapid dumbing down. A typical student graduating from Catholic high school or CCD in 1976 probably had much less doctrinal content than his parents when they graduated from 8th grade.

I refer mainly to religious education but also to preaching, which often drifted to whatever was in the daily newspaper rather than reinforcing doctrine, which half the pre-1960s sermons did. But I was referring to 1958, responding to the other poster. Catholics in 1958 often were solid in doctrinal knowege, with gaps here and there of course. I was talking about Catholics raised in the 1940s and 50s.

I was also talking about Catholics raised in the 40s and 50s. My own experience is that Catholics from that era are no better educated than those from the 60s and 70s. I constantly hear people bemoan the decline in the understanding of the faith, but I have not seen it in those Catholics I have known personally.

 

[JimG]

I guess I must have grown up in a brief golden era. I seem to have understood Catholic doctrine, such as the real presence, better in the second grade than most adults did later, along with my classmates. But the shift in catechesis, when it came, was abrupt, sudden and total. My younger sibling went to the same school and by that time the catechetical instruction had veered off to puffery and banners. No doctrine whatever.

 

[commenter]

the shift in catechesis, when it came, was abrupt, sudden and total. My younger sibling went to the same school and by that time the catechetical instruction had veered off to puffery and banners. No doctrine whatever.

You almost had to be there to see what happened. When I was in high school, mid 60s, my younger siblings were learning almost nothing in Religion. The question was sort of presented, “what’s more important, Love or Dogma?” Then they would eliminate dogma.

This is a dishonest question. The idea that “love” is important, is itself part of dogma. Once you downgrade dogma, then, in the long run, “love” becomes unimportant. There is nothing loving about ignorance of God, but that is in effect what was produced by many religion programs in the late 1960s. The Church needs to do 2 things:

1. Teach the Dogma, including about Marriage, to everyone;
2. Non-Judgmental pastoral practice to individuals, who are affected by many things.

It is not wrong to emphasize #2. It is wrong for the Church to eliminate #1.

By the same token, it is wrong to condemn smokers, to make people feel bad if they are unable to quit due to addiction. They deserve our care and acceptance. But we shouldn’t be silent about the many hazards of smoking, especially in communicating to youth. We should not communicate to smokers that it doesn’t matter if they continue to smoke, or try to quit, since the important thing is love.

 

[Lormar]

I guess I must have grown up in a brief golden era. I seem to have understood Catholic doctrine, such as the real presence, better in the second grade than most adults did later, along with my classmates. But the shift in catechesis, when it came, was abrupt, sudden and total. My younger sibling went to the same school and by that time the catechetical instruction had veered off to puffery and banners. No doctrine whatever.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

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.

A good way to ensure the child is raised Catholic is for the Priest to take time to visit the mother and child, talk to her, and involve them in a community. These people are often ostracised - a priest needs to be an active role in “tending their flock”, not nasal-gazing from the pulpit. Christ ate with sinners, lepers and prostitutes. The Pope said a lot of nonsense in that address (sham marriages?), but this is spot on. The Church will not survive is Priests continue to behave as if the fulfil the same social nexus point as they did in the past, flanked with an army of PTA gossiping housewives. Living like Jesus in his capacity as a patron of the ostracised is exactly what’s needed.

 

[TCEL]

. Living like Jesus in his capacity as a patron of the ostracised is exactly what’s needed.

This is comforting to think about, because before too long, I suspect that many rank and file Catholics will be included with the ostracized. I would love more attention and spiritual help from Priests.

 

[Paganus]

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.”

A priest who has good will and is seeking God, who are we to judge him?