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

[Prodigal_40s]

I believe with no doubt that the Pope’s words were direct and harsh, no matter how they were really worded. Being raised with the Jesuits all my life, I have always been stunned by the Vatican and how the Popes have lived. I could never believe in any way that Christ would live like that if He were alive on earth and running the Church.

As a Jesuit, The Pope is more uncomfortable than you could possibly know with where and how he has to live as the Pope. At the school I work, the priests’ rooms are no bigger than a smaller dorm room with one a bed, a chair, and a small table no matter if they are the President of the school or a Brother in another roll. The Priest who is the President of the school is under the Rector of the Community when they are in their residence. No one is superior to anyone else, they simple have different roles.

There is no trying to “get ahead” or get a better "role. They are here to serve God not to move up in the world. I am thrilled with whatever the Pope said and believe it was closer to what has been reported then some would like to think.

People can keep blaming the press for manipulating his words, we now have a completely different Pope who is trying to clean up a very messy Church. NOT the teaching but those who are doing the teaching while trying to benefit themselves. Yes even some “holy men” are corrupt.

If that’s the case Shelby I’m content with that. I hope he roots out instances of people preaching heresy while he’s at it

 

[LongingSoul]

Prodigal 40. You said *“I will never accept a “revision” that involves any tenuous acceptance of wrong.” * When you say that, do you mean that if the Magisterium makes any ‘revision’ of the status quo, that regardless of the assurance of freedom from error by virtue of the Holy Spirit… that you will reject the ‘revision’?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I do not know,Prodigal. Sometimes we have to learn to live with questions,sometimes our daily lives and the purpose of what we have been created for are very far away from the questions we seem to need to get an answer for.
Here and now our life is a gift,here and now the important may not be what we believe is urgent.
Sometimes we do not not the "why? " but we trust Jesus in our hearts that He knows the "what for " .
In a perspective of eternity,I do not want to miss the here and now of what is real,for a future that here and now does not exist.
God knows. And He loves us…be at peace

I’m sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

You said *“I will never accept a “revision” that involves any tenuous acceptance of wrong.” * When you say that, do you mean that if the Magisterium makes any ‘revision’ of the status quo, that regardless of the assurance of freedom from error by virtue of the Holy Spirit… that you will reject the ‘revision’?

Try giving me a specific example. If this meant allowing same sex couples to get married in church I would say No. If it meant allowing people in a state of mortal sin to receive communion, I would say No.

The trouble I have with your approach is that it’s vague and confusing. It will all depend on what we’re changing won’t it? The Holy Spirit would never countenance changes to Right and Wrong because they it’s simple, any acceptance of evil is just that! I really hope that this is clear.

Give me strength…

 

[LongingSoul]

I genuinely don’t care if you understand or not. If you simplified things by giving straight answers to direct questions, you would find greater clarity. It took you 3 posts to admit that you want change to the laws over the receipt of communion but that really doesn’t matter

I have never said my position is “I want change”. Quote me what words I wrote that gave you that mistaken impression. My position is that the Pope invited the question to synod examination, in the interests of pastoral care, Catholicism, peoples understanding of sacraments and sacramental grace and the future of marriage in the Catholic tradition. My position is that there is a wound in the body of Christ that needs healing and is eluding healing. My position is that any work done theologically and prayerfully under the guidance of Pope Francis will produce a good outcome for the Catholic faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

Try giving me a specific example. If this meant allowing same sex couples to get married in church I would say No. If it meant allowing people in a state of mortal sin to receive communion, I would say No.

The trouble I have with your approach is that it’s vague and confusing. It will all depend on what we’re changing won’t it? The Holy Spirit would never countenance changes to Right and Wrong because they it’s simple, any acceptance of evil is just that! I really hope that this is clear.

Give me strength…

I’ve postulated my opinion of what the wound is, based on discussions with family members that are diocesan Priests, but beyond that I don’t know how a new approach would look. I don’t have the authority, all the historical knowledge nor the holiness required to propose a way. I do however have a faithful trust in the office of Pope and the fearlessness he is showing to address ‘root rot’ rather than just take the safe option of trimming the fruitless twigs. I don’t know what will ‘change’ or even if there will be any significant change. I defend the fearless examination of these issues though because I trust what I have been taught. That the Church is protected from error in teaching on issues of faith and morals. You don’t seem to trust in that ultimate truth.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I’ve postulated my opinion of what the wound is, based on discussions with family members that are diocesan Priests, but beyond that I don’t know how a new approach would look. I don’t have the authority, all the historical knowledge nor the holiness required to propose a way. I do however have a faithful trust in the office of Pope and the fearlessness he is showing to address ‘root rot’ rather than just take the safe option of trimming the fruitless twigs. I don’t know what will ‘change’ or even if there will be any significant change. I defend the fearless examination of these issues though because I trust what I have been taught. That the Church is protected from error in teaching on issues of faith and morals. You don’t seem to trust in that ultimate truth.

I do and you actually should refer back to your original post about divorcees. I see you ignored my comment about the history of the church.

Debating with you is really drawn out and your arguments lack any clarity.

 

[LongingSoul]

I do and you actually should refer back to your original post about divorcees. I see you ignored my comment about the history of the church.

You’ll have to direct me to my ‘original’ post. I’ve posted on this subject in Catholic News for about 3 months now.

As for your claim that Church history does not reflect a teaching on papal infallibility in defining faith and morals, I refer you to the CA teaching tract on the subject.

"Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. "

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

[Prodigal_40s]

You’ll have to direct me to my ‘original’ post. I’ve posted on this subject in Catholic News for about 3 months now.

As for your claim that Church history does not reflect a teaching on papal infallibility in defining faith and morals, I refer you to the CA teaching tract on the subject.

"Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. "

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Find your own posts. It’s earlier on this thread. The rest of your post is just as verbose as your other ones. The fact is if evil is being tenuously allowed through some compromise, I’m not for it. “Study” isn’t required. Examples would include charities who’ve been hoovering money from Catholic congregations to promote abortion and birth control. Once you’ve tried to water down teachings, evil comes flooding in but that won’t happen…ever

 

[LongingSoul]

The fact is if evil is being tenuously allowed through some compromise, I’m not for it. “Study” isn’t required. Examples would include charities who’ve been hoovering money from Catholic congregations to promote abortion and birth control. Once you’ve tried to water down teachings, evil comes flooding in but that won’t happen…ever

I’ve never heard the Church refer to any of her teachings on a subject as ‘compromise’. When a teaching is re examined, it is for the ends of better expressing the spirit of the Gospel to the flock it administers to. Looking at the issue of those permanently barred from holy Communion due to divorce and remarriage… is not an exercise in finding a compromise. It is an exercise in illumination regarding the meaning of Catholic marriage. There is no question of changing the teaching regarding the indissolubility of sacramental marriage or even making exceptions to the teaching. It is looking at a specific phenomenon ie. those people who have bloomed in faith and Catholic family values by some grace of God… yet remain permanently barred from Holy Communion. This issue is not even coming from those people themselves. It is coming from the clergy who minister to them. There seems to be a hidden meaning in these situations bursting to be exposed to the light. To my mind, that can only mean that God wants to reveal something to us for the sake of a renewed understanding and love of sacramental marriage. I want to know what it is and I want the Holy Father and his college of Cardinals and Bishops to work with it in the way they always have to reveal this blessing to us all.

You might regard any new teaching as ‘watering down’ but I guarantee that is not the aim of the Pope in raising the questions.

I’m not sure how your example of charities relates to the issue.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I’ve never heard the Church refer to any of her teachings on a subject as ‘compromise’. When a teaching is re examined, it is for the ends of better expressing the spirit of the Gospel to the flock it administers to. Looking at the issue of those permanently barred from holy Communion due to divorce and remarriage… is not an exercise in finding a compromise. It is an exercise in illumination regarding the meaning of Catholic marriage. There is no question of changing the teaching regarding the indissolubility of sacramental marriage or even making exceptions to the teaching. It is looking at a specific phenomenon ie. those people who have bloomed in faith and Catholic family values by some grace of God… yet remain permanently barred from Holy Communion. This issue is not even coming from those people themselves. It is coming from the clergy who minister to them. There seems to be a hidden meaning in these situations bursting to be exposed to the light. To my mind, that can only mean that God wants to reveal something to us for the sake of a renewed understanding and love of sacramental marriage. I want to know what it is and I want the Holy Father and his college of Cardinals and Bishops to work with it in the way they always have to reveal this blessing to us all.

You might regard any new teaching as ‘watering down’ but I guarantee that is not the aim of the Pope in raising the questions.

I’m not sure how your example of charities relates to the issue.

You speak for the Pope then? Wow.

Again a lot of words about “illuminating” etc. The truth is very simple and right from wrong is easy to determine. You really sound like Sr Pat Farrell. Somebody you admire?

 

[LongingSoul]

You speak for the Pope then? Wow.

Again a lot of words about “illuminating” etc. The truth is very simple and right from wrong is easy to determine. You really sound like Sr Pat Farrell. Somebody you admire?

I speak as a Catholic in defense of the Popes office and authority, yes. Whatever the outcome, whatever the Pope in communion with the Bishops, defines… we can trust as faithful to Catholic doctrine.

I don’t know Sr Pat Farrell but if like I am doing she is speaking up for confidence in the Pope and the protection of the Holy Spirit, then ok.

 

[Sirach2]

I speak as a Catholic in defense of the Popes office and authority, yes. Whatever the outcome, whatever the Pope in communion with the Bishops, defines… we can trust as faithful to Catholic doctrine.

I don’t know Sr Pat Farrell but if like I am doing she is speaking up for confidence in the Pope and the protection of the Holy Spirit, then ok.

Dear friend,
He has continued to bait you and become increasingly insulting, while skirting the topic and aligning you with radicals. As the old saying goes,

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator Note

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[esieffe]

It is not clear to me why this message had to be broadcasted to anyone outside of the group Pope Francis is trying to motivate. While I applaud the vision of Pope Francis in building up the leadership of the Church in the ways of faith and attitude, shaming them may have the opposite effect.

If only three or four of the “spiritual sickness” accusations were true, they need, not deserve, but need to be exposed to the light of day. If you want to clean a damp and moldy house, full of bad air, you have to open the windows, let the sunshine and clean air in.

These reforms must be made in the open. The rot has to be exposed for all to see before it can be removed, otherwise nothing is going to change. Give the Curia a pep talk once change begins to happen. They are big boys, they can handle it.

I know the point you are trying to make. You are being kind and respectful, however we do not know how many quiet chats that went unheeded by the Curia have already been given. Not so easy to do once it is out in the open.

 

[esieffe]

. Can I ask if you are a convert to Catholicism? Only sometimes I’ve noticed that converts have to struggle to have that final confidence of faith in the Papal office.

Not this convert. With all due respect to you and other cradle Catholics, I have found [with the possible exception of online forums] that the opposite is true. At my Church for example, they like to pair converts and cradle Catholics to teach Catechism classes for the simple reason that it takes a lot of work to convert. A year or more. In my case, I studied Catholic doctrine and teaching for years. It helped that my father is an Episcopal Priest.

That being said, I am equally amazed when I run cross anyone who lacks confidence in the Papal office, convert, or cradle.

 

[graciew]

t.news.va/en/news/francis-a-curia-that-is-outdated-sclerotic-or-indi

" I would like to mention some of these illnesses that we encounter most frequently in our life in the Curia. They are weaknesses and temptations that weaken our service to the Lord"

Please, read.

He starts by saying " It is good to think of the Roman Curia as a small model of the Church…"

The Spanish version even says " It is beautiful…"

And then please read this one.

t.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-to-vatican-employees-christmas-a-time

Yes,he does include himself. In both.

 

[esieffe]

I sincerely doubt that these men who take vows to a religious order are doing it because they covet the trappings of office. Every man has a station in life and there are as many different stations in the Church as one can imagine. I don’t really see an issue for those who are of the talent and ability to manage and run things doing just that. Even a moderate size diocese needs intelligent, capable people to make things work. Religious orders and diocesan bishops will send men for advanced degrees with the explicit intent to use and harness their knowledge and abilities for the good of the parish/diocese. I don’t see that as a bad thing. I personally think that Pope Francis should be a little more selective in some of things he says. There is no denying that his off the cuff manner has served to create confusion more than clearing an issue.

We cannot possibly ever know what conversations, meetings and so on, that have gone on between the Pope, his panel and the Curia. That said, I think it is entirely fair to force whatever “sickness,” problems, or organized resistance to the Pope by the Curia out into the Public, where it can be witnessed by Catholics worldwide. The Pope is the Head of State for Vatican City. These people, the Curia work for him, us, our Lord and Church.

I fully agree with you that there is a need for experienced and loyal hands. I am sure there are many there who are. I would also add, prompted by your remarks that it would be unfair and confusing to publicly admonish the Curia without a blueprint or map for improvement. This may have been done already. I would not drag the dialog out in public, and I don’t think the Holy Father would either, unless there is a hard organized core of resistance. I speculate that this is what is happening.

 

[DaveBj]

If only three or four of the “spiritual sickness” accusations were true, they need, not deserve, but need to be exposed to the light of day. If you want to clean a damp and moldy house, full of bad air, you have to open the windows, let the sunshine and clean air in.

These reforms must be made in the open. The rot has to be exposed for all to see before it can be removed, otherwise nothing is going to change. Give the Curia a pep talk once change begins to happen. They are big boys, they can handle it.

I know the point you are trying to make. You are being kind and respectful, however we do not know how many quiet chats that went unheeded by the Curia have already been given. Not so easy to do once it is out in the open.

A voice of reason. Well said.

 

[shelby_sun]

We cannot possibly ever know what conversations, meetings and so on, that have gone on between the Pope, his panel and the Curia. That said, I think it is entirely fair to force whatever “sickness,” problems, or organized resistance to the Pope by the Curia out into the Public, where it can be witnessed by Catholics worldwide. The Pope is the Head of State for Vatican City. These people, the Curia work for him, us, our Lord and Church.

I fully agree with you that there is a need for experienced and loyal hands. I am sure there are many there who are. I would also add, prompted by your remarks that it would be unfair and confusing to publicly admonish the Curia without a blueprint or map for improvement. This may have been done already. I would not drag the dialog out in public, and I don’t think the Holy Father would either, unless there is a hard organized core of resistance. I speculate that this is what is happening.

I believe the Pope will handle these issues as the should have been handled by every other Pope. He is not worried about what others think or who may go against him. He wants the best Church their can be, one deserving of being Christ’s Church. That is obviously not what the Pope has been experiencing. The Church is not safe from the terrible characteristic that men may have, such as greed, jealousy, power, and lust. No one wants to believe these men of God could be so corrupt, but many are no different than the men in large world wide companies and they fall to the same evil that surround them. This kind of talk was very long overdue and I think the world will respect the Pope for trying to better his own Church than covering things up and try to expose and change non Catholic.