Pope identifies 15 spiritual 'sicknesses' of the Curia [CWN]

[JohnPaul]

I believe he is just making the Curia a much** healthier group of leaders**. Nothing more.

I wouldn’t want to work for the man … he dresses people down in public.

 

[JohnPaul]

And he has. In fact, he went to confession for all to see this past year.

Jim

So he gets to keep his sins private in the confessional, but calls out the sins of others publicly?

Whenever our pastor speaks of sin, he includes himself by saying, “We need to …”. I don’t hear that from this pope.

 

[irishpatrick]

The Lord promised He would be with us until the end of this age–let us trust that the Lord knows what He is doing with His Church.

In the meantime, let us rejoice for Christmas is at hand!

 

[sallybutler]

Many of us that are complaining about the Pope identifying spiritual sicknesses of the Curia would have no problem complaining about the spiritual sicknesses of society or the cultural or Hollywood or the government or the school system or our next door neighbor.

I’ve read lots of writings that it is our job as Christians to call out sin publically when we see it. Keeping quiet is not an option. We must condemm sin where ever it is. etc, etc, etc.

And as far as the privacy vs publiciness of his statement, perhaps he has already told each of them in private. However, at some point, when private admonitions don’t work, one must make them public.

 

[ProVobis]

Many of us that are complaining about the Pope identifying spiritual sicknesses of the Curia would have no problem complaining about the spiritual sicknesses of society or the cultural or Hollywood or the government or the school system or our next door neighbor.

I’ve read lots of writings that it is our job as Christians to call out sin publically when we see it. Keeping quiet is not an option. We must condemm sin where ever it is. etc, etc, etc.

And as far as the privacy vs publiciness of his statement, perhaps he has already told each of them in private. However, at some point, when private admonitions don’t work, one must make them public.

Okay, let’s assume the Pope is correct on this (and there’s no reason he isn’t) shouldn’t we ask just how far back this “sickness” goes, just like with your example with the sickness of society? Should Pope Paul have elaborated on his “smoke of Satan” statement, for example? Or should Pope Pius XII not have undertaken his Mass reforms, etc, etc.? I mean this is part of the Magisterium of the Church, no?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Many of us that are complaining about the Pope identifying spiritual sicknesses of the Curia would have no problem complaining about the spiritual sicknesses of society or the cultural or Hollywood or the government or the school system or our next door neighbor.

I’ve read lots of writings that it is our job as Christians to call out sin publically when we see it. Keeping quiet is not an option. We must condemm sin where ever it is. etc, etc, etc.

And as far as the privacy vs publiciness of his statement, perhaps he has already told each of them in private. However, at some point, when private admonitions don’t work, one must make them public.

Oh well said. That includes anything that seeks to change church teaching. Receipt of communion only in a state of grace is a law that cannot be changed. If the priest giving communion knows that the recipient supports or is in a State of mortal sin they should be refused the blessed sacrament. Also statements that aren’t clear and give the impression of acceptance of sinfulness…including sins of the flesh! then they should be clarified and if not they should be disregarded and condemned.
There I go condemning sin as you insist that we all do!

 

[LongingSoul]

Many of us that are complaining about the Pope identifying spiritual sicknesses of the Curia would have no problem complaining about the spiritual sicknesses of society or the cultural or Hollywood or the government or the school system or our next door neighbor.

I’ve read lots of writings that it is our job as Christians to call out sin publically when we see it. Keeping quiet is not an option. We must condemm sin where ever it is. etc, etc, etc.

And as far as the privacy vs publiciness of his statement, perhaps he has already told each of them in private. However, at some point, when private admonitions don’t work, one must make them public.

You are right there. Jesus several times forcefully accused the Pharisees with being ‘hypocrites!’ Matthew 23 being most prolific with the exclamation marks to make the point. 6 times during His speech to the Pharisees he found cause to call them hypocrites for calling out others on their observance on law while they wallowed in the profits and luxuries of the Temple life.

 

[Cider]

At the risk of sounding judgmental.I’d say you sounded rather judgmental by saying the comments sounded rather judgmental at the risk of sounding judgmental.

But “who am I to judge?”

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Okay, let’s assume the Pope is correct on this (and there’s no reason he isn’t) shouldn’t we ask just how far back this “sickness” goes, just like with your example with the sickness of society? Should Pope Paul have elaborated on his “smoke of Satan” statement, for example? Or should Pope Pius XII not have undertaken his Mass reforms, etc, etc.? I mean this is part of the Magisterium of the Church, no?

My biggest problem with this is that there isn’t absolute truth in these statements and it’s allowing people to interpret them. I still have no clue, with absolute certainty, whether or not be was criticizing the Curio or was it specific comments or statements made by them? Do you?

 

[ProVobis]

My biggest problem with this is that there isn’t absolute truth in these statements and it’s allowing people to interpret them. I still have no clue, with absolute certainty, whether or not be was criticizing the Curio or was it specific comments or statements made by them? Do you?

I agree. He might be criticizing ALL of us, for all we know.

 

[Book_Worm]

Evidently, the Holy Father has addressed this issue privately several times and was not happy with the response. It looks like he’s trying a different tactic.

And I’d be willing to get that for every Catholic who left the Church because of the “liberals,” there is at least another one who left in disgust because of the hierarchy’s refusal to address the sexual abuse scandals. AAMF, all those I know who have left have cited that reason.

 

[LongingSoul]

Matthew 5:18
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

That’s an interesting opinion on Judas. How is that the “technical
orthodox” position? What do you base that on?

The exchange in the home of Mary and Martha was just one example of how hypocrisy works.

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, **“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ** He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.” - John 12:3-8

Judas here is taking the ‘high ground’. He is speaking the words of the ‘good’ Jew to rebuke Jesus for His lack of Jewish principle regarding poor. There were no doubt other issues of Jewish orthodoxy being flouted also with a woman anointing His feet. The passage also reports that “So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.”

Again we see the chief priests planning to act to protect the Jewish faith against the ‘unorthodox’ Jesus by killing Lazarus. Following Jesus was a courageous thing for the Jews to do because He was presenting as anything but ‘orthodox’. But what they were following was Gods Word. You can imagine that even walking up to Calvary the followers of Jesus were accused of being the equivalent of wishy washy liberals compared to the traditional, ‘law abiding’ Pharisees. The chief priests and Pharisees were obviously confident that crucifying Jesus was in the interest of the temple and their religion. It’s only with our hindsight we see the real ungodliness of their hypocritical position.

 

[DaveBj]

I remember a certain pastor several years ago mentioning the fact that throughout 2000 yrs of Catholicism only eight Cardinals have been canonized.

The Pope is basically saying nothing that many of us didn’t know before.

Interesting. I wonder if that includes cardinals who eventually became popes.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

The exchange in the home of Mary and Martha was just one example of how hypocrisy works.

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, **“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ** He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.” - John 12:3-8

Judas here is taking the ‘high ground’. He is speaking the words of the ‘good’ Jew to rebuke Jesus for His lack of Jewish principle regarding poor. There were no doubt other issues of Jewish orthodoxy being flouted also with a woman anointing His feet. The passage also reports that “So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.”

Again we see the chief priests planning to act to protect the Jewish faith against the ‘unorthodox’ Jesus by killing Lazarus. **Following Jesus was a courageous thing for the Jews to do because He was presenting as anything but ‘orthodox’. But what they were following was Gods Word. You can imagine that even walking up to Calvary the followers of Jesus were accused of being the equivalent of wishy washy liberals compared to the traditional, ‘law abiding’ Pharisees. ** The chief priests and Pharisees were obviously confident that crucifying Jesus was in the interest of the temple and their religion. It’s only with our hindsight we see the real ungodliness of their hypocritical position.

Oh I think following the liberalism of the modern relativist would be pretty orthodox. If the Lord God were to criticize the modern media and their constant focus on making sexual amorality acceptable and somehow righteous I think he’s be regarded as threatening.

That kind of interpretation of sacred scripture makes my blood boil!

 

[LongingSoul]

My biggest problem with this is that there isn’t absolute truth in these statements and it’s allowing people to interpret them. I still have no clue, with absolute certainty, whether or not be was criticizing the Curio or was it specific comments or statements made by them? Do you?

He is obviously addressing problems with the Curia that have been known for a very long time. In any organisation that has fallen into entrenched disease, its easier to protect the status quo than make change happen because it requires taking a courageous stand to make change happen. But the Pope doesn’t name names or publically accuse any one person because these grown men, formed by the Church to a holy life, have the capability of self examination and renewal within themselves. If the rest of us aren’t moved to self examine when we read the Popes words we are missing a real growth opportunity. One of the most important aspects of the Spiritual Exercises is the Examen. My Spiritual Director told me that even if I didn’t get to doing the morning contemplation… to never fail to do the Examen each night.

Pope Francis is teaching us all the keys to the Examen every time he opens his mouth I think.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

He is obviously addressing problems with the Curia that have been known for a very long time. In any organisation that has fallen into entrenched disease, its easier to protect the status quo than make change happen because it requires taking a courageous stand to make change happen. But the Pope doesn’t name names or publically accuse any one person because these grown men, formed by the Church to a holy life, have the capability of self examination and renewal within themselves. If the rest of us aren’t moved to self examine when we read the Popes words we are missing a real growth opportunity. One of the most important aspects of the Spiritual Exercises is the Examen. My Spiritual Director told me that even if I didn’t get to doing the morning contemplation… to never fail to do the Examen each night.

Pope Francis is teaching us all the keys to the Examen every time he opens his mouth I think.

I’m not too bright. So specifically what do you want to happen in this “real growth opportunity”? It’s a very simple question

 

[LongingSoul]

Oh I think following the liberalism of the modern relativist would be pretty orthodox. If the Lord God were to criticize the modern media and their constant focus on making sexual amorality acceptable and somehow righteous I think he’s be regarded as threatening.

That kind of interpretation of sacred scripture makes my blood boil!

I’m talking about those of us who as faithful practicing Catholics are deemed ‘liberal’ within the Church (on these internet forums) for defending the decision of Pope Francis to open questions up to examination by the synod etc. In every way I believe in Church teaching without exception. ‘Liberalness’ here is solely judged on the defense of the papal direction of Pope Francis.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I’m talking about those of us who as faithful practicing Catholics are deemed ‘liberal’ within the Church (on these internet forums) for defending the decision of Pope Francis to open questions up to examination by the synod etc. In every way I believe in Church teaching without exception. ‘Liberalness’ here is solely judged on the defense of the papal direction of Pope Francis.

Ok. So you don’t accept any deviation from church teaching? That includes receipt of communion, sexual sin etc. All of these teachings should never change?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

What I’ve noticed about this type of “dialogue” is that when you ask a straight question, you never get an answer back. That says it all…

 

[LongingSoul]

Ok. So you don’t accept any deviation from church teaching? That includes receipt of communion, sexual sin etc. All of these teachings should never change?

Yes right. I do not accept any deviation from Church teaching that includes the authority of the Pope and the processes of the Synods and Councils initiated by him. When the synod is finalised and the resultant letter or encyclical is signed off by the Pope… I will faithfully accept it.