Pope praises Samaritan’s witness, warns against those who present the faith with ‘mathematical rigidity’ [CWN]

[CWN_News]

On June 18, Pope Francis visited Villa Nazareth, an apostolate that offers educational opportunities for young persons in need, and reflected on the witness that the Good Samaritan offered to the innkeeper.

More…

 

[philipl]

On June 18, Pope Francis visited Villa Nazareth, an apostolate that offers educational opportunities for young persons in need, and reflected on the witness that the Good Samaritan offered to the innkeeper.

More…

Is he trying to say the rules of the faith are more like guidelines?

 

[Neofight]

Is he trying to say the rules of the faith are more like guidelines?

I think what he is saying is we should spend more time worrying about the anagogical message of Scripture and less about Canon Law…the first will take care of the later.

 

[RPRPsych]

I think what he is saying is we should spend more time worrying about the anagogical message of Scripture and less about Canon Law…the first will take care of the later.

As Saint Paul puts it, we now live not under the Law, but under Grace. This does not free us from obeying the moral law (God gives us the grace to do that!), but it means we should not obsess over the law as, say, the Pharisaical Rabbis of Christ’s time did.

 

[JimG]

As Saint Paul puts it, we now live not under the Law, but under Grace. This does not free us from obeying the moral law (God gives us the grace to do that!), but it means we should not obsess over the law as, say, the Pharisaical Rabbis of Christ’s time did.

Well, Christians do not obsess over the precepts of the Rabinnical law, since it has been superseded. But I doubt that either St. Paul or Pope Francis would advocate for tossing Christian moral law overboard, since Christian moral law is based on the teaching of Jesus.

 

[RPRPsych]

Well, Christians do not obsess over the precepts of the Rabinnical law, since it has been superseded. But I doubt that either St. Paul or Pope Francis would advocate for tossing Christian moral law overboard, since Christian moral law is based on the teaching of Jesus.

You are absolutely right. I don’t think the Pope would ever countenance a thing like that; on the other hand, he does come across as more “pastoral” than the high-caliber theologians St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and he tends to speak in those terms and from his experience in a different culture.

 

[2PT3]

[warns against those who present the faith with ‘mathematical rigidity’]

I guess he’s going to keep knocking down this straw man again and again and again. This is clearly the interpretive key to his entire pontificate: those who insist that Catholics must strive to live according to the Church’s doctrine in order to remain in the grace of God and in good standing within the Church are the real “bad guys” in today’s world.

 

[katy]

As Saint Paul puts it, we now live not under the Law, but under Grace. This does not free us from obeying the moral law (God gives us the grace to do that!), but it means we should not obsess over the law as, say, the Pharisaical Rabbis of Christ’s time did.

No doubt, but I don’t observe much obsessing over the law among many right now. Making excuses seems a lot more popular (including with myself.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I was of half a mind not to comment on this, but here goes:
“free us from the doctors who want to present the faith of Jesus Christ with a mathematical rigidity”
In the concrete, real, present-day world, who would this actually apply to? Some suggestions:

1. People who maintain that remorse is not the same thing as repentance, that living in a state of sin - like cohabitation - with an uneasy conscience does not qualify for God’s forgiveness until one has undertaken to get out of that state of sin. It’s called ‘purpose of amendment’ in the old-fashioned parlance.
2. Priests who will not give absolution to a penitent in a habitual state of sin until he/she shows a real determination to put his/her life in order.
3. People who affirm that God’s laws never change even if one feels oneself morally incapable of keeping them, and that one can spend years struggling with an ingrained moral weakness - called a ‘vice’’ in the old-fashioned parlance - until by God’s grace one finally overcomes it. But every time one commits a grave sin due to ingrained vice it is still a grave sin. They all have to be repented of and atoned for. This is why there is Purgatory.
4. People who maintain that these difficult truths must be taught to Catholics, because they are the truth and the truth sets you free.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Is the Catholic Culture website to be a solid source of Catholic material? Be careful, more than half the sites that call themselves Catholic have a funny agenda.

 

[RPRPsych]

Is the Catholic Culture website to be a solid source of Catholic material? Be careful, more than half the sites that call themselves Catholic have a funny agenda.

Used to be good. Of late, they’ve hopped (half-heartedly) on the “Francis is dangerous!” bandwagon.

 

[Havard]

You are absolutely right. I don’t think the Pope would ever countenance a thing like that; on the other hand, he does come across as more “pastoral” than the high-caliber theologians St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and he tends to speak in those terms and from his experience in a different culture.

The word “pastoral” gets thrown around a lot in this context, but it is definitely the wrong word -IMHO-. Pastoral indicates the ability to provide good spiritual shepherding, and I would never say one of the above is “more pastoral” than another simply based on style.

I am glad that many people feel that Pope Francis is particularly relatable to them, however those who often read substantive contrast with his predecessors between the lines are not only missing the continuity; they are getting a false, if not insidious, picture.

 

[Pug]

On June 18, Pope Francis visited Villa Nazareth, an apostolate that offers educational opportunities for young persons in need, and reflected on the witness that the Good Samaritan offered to the innkeeper.

More…

Since the context is the Samaritan who deviated from his plans and helped the man by the side of the road when the priest and Levite didn’t, perhaps Francis hopes we can deviate from our plans and make room to do what the situation demands. Perhaps like a teacher who plans to cover calculus that day, but instead reviews the basics (algebra) because it is the need of the moment. Same for a catechetical lesson. You need to meet the inquirer where they are and point the way to Jesus from there, not from where your lesson plan says they are. (Of course, still be thorough in topic coverage )

 

[RPRPsych]

The word “pastoral” gets thrown around a lot in this context, but it is definitely the wrong word -IMHO-. Pastoral indicates the ability to provide good spiritual shepherding, and I would never say one of the above is “more pastoral” than another simply based on style.

I am glad that many people feel that Pope Francis is particularly relatable to them, however those who often read substantive contrast with his predecessors between the lines are not only missing the continuity; they are getting a false, if not insidious, picture.

Sorry, I was being terminologically inexact. I was simply trying to capture a difference in style. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that Francis has a more “down-to-earth” style, and is not as theologically exact or profound as his illustrious predecessors. I admire them all, but I certainly do not want to insinuate that he differs substantively from them.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Used to be good. Of late, they’ve hopped (half-heartedly) on the “Francis is dangerous!” bandwagon.

A bit like Catholic Answers, who is now ‘answering’ Pope Francis as opposed to merely defending/supporting/repeating him.

 

[JosieN]

Is this the belief of the Pope and are we obligated to agree with it or is I more like an opinion and we are free to ignore it? I think we all need to know what a sin is and if it is too flexible, the whole idea of sin is erased and it becomes just a matter of opinion, eventually nothing will be sinful anymore. If it is not really a sin then why ask for forgiveness? There will be no need for churches if there is no sin or repentance.

 

[RPRPsych]

Is this the belief of the Pope and are we obligated to agree with it or is I more like an opinion and we are free to ignore it? I think we all need to know what a sin is and if it is too flexible, the whole idea of sin is erased and it becomes just a matter of opinion, eventually nothing will be sinful anymore. If it is not really a sin then why ask for forgiveness? There will be no need for churches if there is no sin or repentance.

It is certainly not binding Magisterial teaching. It’s just a personal opinion that must be viewed in context.

 

[commenter]

Since the context is the Samaritan who deviated from his plans and helped the man by the side of the road when the priest and Levite didn’t, perhaps Francis hopes we can deviate from our plans and make room to do what the situation demands. Perhaps like a teacher who plans to cover calculus that day, but instead reviews the basics (algebra) because it is the need of the moment. Same for a catechetical lesson. You need to meet the inquirer where they are and point the way to Jesus from there, not from where your lesson plan says they are. (Of course, still be thorough in topic coverage )

OK. Pope Francis is right in assuming that there still are some Christians who are rigid in applying doctrine, and oblivious of the human condition and frailties.
But…
Those aren’t the only people who have a blind spot. There are other Christians who are obsessed with accepting human frailties, and oblivious to Christian doctrine. The pope ought to minister to that blind spot, too.
The command to love everyone is a dogma. It is an act of love to teach dogma. We don’t have to choose between dogma and love. In the long run, we will either have both dogma and love, or we will have neither. In our culture of relativism, we are moving towards having neither.

The relativists who control the media, education, and parts of Catholic and Protestant institutions, especially colleges, are in danger of losing their immortal souls. It seems heartless for church leaders to simply ride on by, ignoring the long term danger those people are in. It would seem an act of love for a church leader to stop, and lovingly try to correct them, to heal up **their **non-so-obvious wounds.

My doctor is not rejecting of patients who smoke. He does not ridicule them, does not exclude them from his practice, as some doctors now do. He is there to serve them, regardless of their personal health choices. But…
He is emphatic and clear that smoking is bad for one’s health. He opposed cigarette advertizing when it was legal, he strongly discouraged young people from taking up that habit, and gently encourages those who are addicted to try to give it up. You could say he is “rigid” about smoking, though accepting of smokers. We should all be as loving, as persistent, as “rigid” in reaching out to the relativists, in and out of the Church.

 

[RPRPsych]

OK. Pope Francis is right in assuming that there still are some Christians who are rigid in applying doctrine, and oblivious of the human condition and frailties.
But…
Those aren’t the only people who have a blind spot. There are other Christians who are obsessed with accepting human frailties, and oblivious to Christian doctrine. The pope ought to minister to that blind spot, too.
The command to love everyone is a dogma. It is an act of love to teach dogma. We don’t have to choose between dogma and love. In the long run, we will either have both dogma and love, or we will have neither. In our culture of relativism, we are moving towards having neither.

The relativists who control the media, education, and parts of Catholic and Protestant institutions, especially colleges, are in danger of losing their immortal souls. It seems heartless for church leaders to simply ride on by, ignoring the long term danger those people are in. It would seem an act of love for a church leader to stop, and lovingly try to correct them, to heal up **their **non-so-obvious wounds.

My doctor is not rejecting of patients who smoke. He does not ridicule them, does not exclude them from his practice, as some doctors now do. He is there to serve them, regardless of their personal health choices. But…
He is emphatic and clear that smoking is bad for one’s health. He opposed cigarette advertizing when it was legal, he strongly discouraged young people from taking up that habit, and gently encourages those who are addicted to try to give it up. You could say he is “rigid” about smoking, though accepting of smokers. We should all be as loving, as persistent, as “rigid” in reaching out to the relativists, in and out of the Church.

 

[Pug]

The command to love everyone is a dogma. It is an act of love to teach dogma. We don’t have to choose between dogma and love. In the long run, we will either have both dogma and love, or we will have neither. In our culture of relativism, we are moving towards having neither.

I bolded for emphasis. I agree with that. Somehow our culture shows a tendency to draw strange-seeming conclusions, like that my choice not to support certain legislation corresponds to active hate for some individuals on my part. What a non-sequitur! Perhaps it is the fault of relativism in that the only measure allowed of good for an individual is that which they seek, since there supposedly is no absolute good. So when I wish for my friend something other than what they are seeking for themselves, I must be wishing ill to them and hence hate them. I really don’t know. Sharing dogma with people seems to be tarred by the same brush as failure to support certain laws.