Pope Francis surprised by misunderstanding of his words on family

[MomaMary8]

.”

In the in-flight press conference back from Manila Jan. 19, Pope Francis said, “some think that – excuse the language – that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits,” an stressed that it was instead important to exercise “responsible parenthood.”

Could someone please tell our Holy Father that if we must use a phrase that prepares a listener to hear a crass phrase, perhaps he should think of something else to say? A “pardon me” before an expletive never excuses the expletive. Same goes for crass phrasing.

BTW I personally know a woman who has had 8 c sections, properly spaced, and vocations among the children. Her trust in God has been quite fruitful! c sections do have their risks, but are not always a death sentence. Find a dr you trust. My :twocents:

 

[LongingSoul]

It was a response to KSU’s post, where he noted the ambiguities in the VII docs opened the door to widespread discord and heterodoxy in the Church.

He stated many of Francis’ statements have the same effect.

Note the fact that ambiguous statements and docs are used to spread evil is not necessarily a condemnation of the speaker or writer.

Secularists would like to get rid of the Bible as its ambiguity is used to justify wars and abuse too. Do you agree with them?

The documents of Vatican II are a reflection of the goal of Vatican II part of which was to give proper recognition to the common priesthood. That is the value of Gods call to each and every person in the mission of the Church.

The most significant aspect of the Catholic character is the gift of the soul as a shared experience of Christ … and the gift of free will. People have to take responsibility for their own part misrepresenting or distorting Church documents or the Popes teachings and not be looking to blame and defer their responsibility elsewhere. Through Christ, our eternal fates are not tied to our human heritage or to the letter of the law. We experience our filial relationship as sons and daughters through our brother Christ.

When Pope Paul VI made his homily referencing the ‘smoke of Satan’ as per KSU’s post, his final words were reported thus…

Finally, the Pope invites the faithful to an act of faith that is humble and sincere, to a psychological effort** to find in their own hearts the impetus towards a conscious act of adherence: ** “Lord, I believe in Your word, I believe in Your revelation, I believe in the one You have given me as witness and guarantor of Your revelation to sense and to prove, with the strength of faith, the anticipation of the blessedness of the life that is promised us with faith.”

As part of the Catholic character it is incumbent upon us to give the holy Father a special value in our faith and not to second guess his authenticity based on our personal dislike of his personality or teaching style.

 

[robertmidwest]

Anecdotes are a usual way of giving a concrete example of these hidden ideologies. There were some significant markers in his anecdote… the most significant was the womens comment that “she trusts in God” as a way of deferring responsibility for producing endless children. The other was that she was relying fully on modern medicine to preserve her life and the life of each child, without a sense of natural caution. The reality is that without medical care, she most likely will die and leave a whole lot of orphaned children.

The Pope is trying to articulate that attitude that is evident in some people that having as many children as the body can produce is to be super Catholic and to plan a family using natural periods of abstinence is nothing more than contraception. It’s just a wrong ideology and it seems quite hard to kill it. It’s like a super bug.

I agree about 99.99%. I am little confused by the medical care statement though. I am not sure the discussion went in the direction of her not having medical care. All her pregnancies were C-section, so she must have had some type of medical care.

Even with best medical care in the world another pregnancy is putting her at a very high risk of orphaning her children. I think very few doctors would state that seven (or more) C-sections is safe. (A side note: All three of our kids were C-section. The doctor told my wife she would not accept her at as a patient is she got pregnant again. The risks were way to high.)

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree about 99.99%. I am little confused by the medical care statement though. I am not sure the discussion went in the direction of her not having medical care. All her pregnancies were C-section, so she must have had some type of medical care.

I probably didn’t qualify my statement clearly enough but I meant that the woman was depending heavily on the medical establishment for the safe outcome of her pregnancy… which would most likely not be safe for herself, her baby and her other children, without that medical care. Her saying ‘I trust in God’ is not giving enough credit to the people and the institution who she was really trusting in here. Having a normal sense of appreciation for the people and institutions that we are depending on for our safety and security is part of the discernment process with regard to having more children.

As another more secular example, many young women will get pregnant and have a lot of children because the government will pay for them. Rather than viewing the welfare institution as a safety net, they view it as an entitlement. They view their bodies and their babies as money making products (similar to the Catholic browny point idea). So the woman with seven kids on welfare because her husband died is not motivated by the same ideology as the single woman with seven kids who had them from a sense of entitlement to be supported by the government. Both can’t say that their decision to have children was properly discerned.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by SWolf
If the recent controversies have taught us anything, it’s that ambiguity is a tool of the devil.

Jesus also had some pretty frightening words for those who were attributing the work of the Spirit to ‘demons’. I would hesitate with huge caution before going that road.

Ambiguity and the harm it has caused the Church was the subject of my post, as well as of the completely reasonable and innocuous above-quoted reply by SWolf. How on earth, LongingSoul, were you able to construe any of that to mean harmful ambiguity is the work of the Spirit? Even worse, why did you then reference the Bible to liken us to enemies of Christ who attributed “the work of the Spirit to ‘demons’”? Really, LongingSoul?

Later, you continued your theme by posting, “Secularists would like to get rid of the Bible as its ambiguity is used to justify wars and abuse, too. Do you agree with them?”

No, of course I don’t agree with them. But I can just hear Francis say: “Sometimes, due to their honest ignorance, secularists can be forgiven more quickly than some believers; who am I to judge?”

I don’t know what bur has gotten under your saddle, my friend, but you are not disproving the point that ambiguity is bad when susceptible to grave misuse-- in words spoken off-the-cuff by the Holy Father and especially in Church documents.

If you want to reference the Bible in regard to the subject matter of this thread, think Matthew 5:37: “Say ‘Yes’ when you mean ‘Yes,’ and ‘No’ when you mean mean ‘No’; anything more is from the evil one.”

There you have Christ Himself condemning purposeful ambiguity, which, of course, cannot be attributed to the Holy Father’s of-the-cuff remarks. But purposeful or not, his words are misused.