Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[Exiled_Child]

From Love’s perspective, we could all do with some loosening up. I agree wholeheartedly with Francis, our Holy Father.

 

[KSU]

I think this ties into Pope Francis’ concern that we need to form consciences more than create rules.

**With respect, Pope Francis is not concerned that his “critics” (an inappropriate, unfortunate term to begin with) want to create more “rules” regarding marriage and adultery. He would never deny that we have all the rules (and a storehouse of magisterial teaching about those rules) we need to save our souls.

That includes rules (scripture, infallible magisterial statements, Cannon law, well spelled out discipline, etc.) applicable to people in irregular marriages. No new rules about marriage and adultery are necessary–the existing body of rules and the internal forum are sufficient. **

It would be impossible to create rules for every single situation that a person might encounter,

Nor is it necessary; there is nothing new under the sun. Every situation that a person might encounter already is covered by rules, and when there are gray areas, an orthodox confessor has the duty to assist a person to apply the rules in order to allow a person to form his conscience according to those rules. A confessor has neither authority nor need to create new rules for irregular marriages.

which is one reason why a person needs to have a conscience formed by the Church so that they can properly discern God’s will. And if a conscience is properly formed to begin with we wouldn’t encounter some of these situations at all.

**A conscience formed by the Church which allows a person to properly discern God’s will is a conscience formed according to known rules. The Church does not create new rules for individuals; it applies existing rules. We are not Protestants.

And you’e right that if a conscience is properly formed to begin with we wouldn’t encounter some of these situations, unless of course a person chose to disregard his conscience, which is the reason why a person in an irregular marriage wants to receive Communion–his properly formed conscience is bothering him. Good! We have rules for that.**

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Humanae Vitae was ignored by scores of priests and protested by many

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/Paul%20VI-a_blast_from_the_past.htm

However unlike today’s climate when 4 Cardinals are called disobedient for submitting a Dubia and attacked as rigid heretics the scores of Humanae Vitae protesters were called heroic pastoral voices when in reality they were openly defying the Supreme Pontiff.

Having lived through the era, I vividly remember those who dissented from Humanae Vitae…and I also just as vividly remember others who openly defied the Supreme Pontiff because of a want of the obedience that they owed to him.

 

[patricius79]

Both the synod and Amoris Laetitia does address matrimony.

I would imagine so. I know A.L. does. And I’m glad the Holy Father affirms Humanae Vitae. But has the problem of avoiding this teaching at the parish level been resolved? . I give my assent to the Holy Father in A.L. I think we need to explicitly affirm, from the Papacy to the parish family–that only those who are firmly resolved to avoid all serious sin–including contraception, and including sex in an irregular marriage–may receive Communion. I.e., we need to be firmly resolved to keep all the commandments if we wish to receive Communion. I don’t think we’ve been proclaiming this clearly, explaining it in a positive way in the context of God’s truth and mercy, and the help of the Mother of God.

 

[Thomas_White]

Ah, there’s the rub with the view that there is a “gray area” and “ambiguity” in Church doctrines. Some priests have no problem bending the rules and teachings of the Church. Why would they expect faithful Catholics to be obedient to them when they themselves are disobedient to the Church? Some pastors have no problem stepping on the toes of the faithful who want to follow the guidelines of the Church when it comes to the issues of faith, morals, and liturgy. Exactly who is being rigid here? Is it the faithful who yearn to be obedient to Holy Mother Church, or is it those who say that the buck stops with them?..

Another term commonly lobbed at faithful Catholics is legalism. That is to say that obedient Catholics are told they need to be wary of being “legalistic” in following the laws of the Church…

“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (22-1, 3).

Is this to say that the Church is rigid? If you say that, you are saying in effect that God is rigid (and thank God that he is! Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever”). Ephesians chapters 1, 4, and 5 speak of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, of which Jesus is the head. He is the bridegroom of the Church, and thus the two are one. If you follow the teachings of the Church, you are being obedient to Christ. These are not man-made rules and regulations. They are the laws of God, and he asks us to be obedient to them, not in a rigid way but in a way of obedience which leads us to holiness and sanctification.

Sadly, in the Western world it seems sometimes that those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church are in the minority. However, given the revelations in the past few months about some of our shepherds, we will see more faithful Catholics emerge from the ashes. Alas, so too will many, as a result of “gray areas” and “ambiguity” from some of those shepherds, leave the Church.

• Catholic Answers
  catholic.com/magazine/articles/does-being-faithful-mean-you-are-rigid

Very well said. I fear a great mistake has been made. Count me in as one who has emerged from the ashes.

 

[patricius79]

Very well said. I fear a great mistake has been made. Count me in as one who has emerged from the ashes.

Thomas,

One of the things I’m struggling to understand here is religious assent. I don’t really understand what it means. A.L. is a magisterial document, but of course it’s not all doctrinal (which requires the assent of faith).

Some here seem to think it is disobedience to even wish that the dubia be answered, since the Pope has said he will not answer them; or that it’s disobedience to make any criticisms at all of A.L.

I want to be obedient both to this Pope and to the Tradition of the Church and to the previous Popes.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas,

One of the things I’m struggling to understand here is religious assent. I don’t really understand what it means. A.L. is a magisterial document, but of course it’s not all doctrinal (which requires the assent of faith).

Some here seem to think it is disobedience to even wish that the dubia be answered, since the Pope has said he will not answer them; or that it’s disobedience to make any criticisms at all of A.L.

I want to be obedient both to this Pope and to the Tradition of the Church and to the previous Popes.

I am not an expert on religious assent, but in my opinion merely wishing that the dubia be answered is not in itself disobedience. However, it is a serious question and we saw something similar occur when ‘Laudato si’ was promulgated. The encyclical ‘Laudato si’ has been questioned by many.

 

[Richca]

Thomas,

One of the things I’m struggling to understand here is religious assent. I don’t really understand what it means. A.L. is a magisterial document, but of course it’s not all doctrinal (which requires the assent of faith).

Some here seem to think it is disobedience to even wish that the dubia be answered, since the Pope has said he will not answer them; or that it’s disobedience to make any criticisms at all of A.L.

I want to be obedient both to this Pope and to the Tradition of the Church and to the previous Popes.

Here is an interesting article from Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch titled “CREEPING INFALLIBILITY - AMORIS LAETITIA AND MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY” you might want to read.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/09/creeping-infallibility

 

[JPUSC]

Here is an interesting article from Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch titled “CREEPING INFALLIBILITY - AMORIS LAETITIA AND MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY” you might want to read.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/09/creeping-infallibility

"Some positions in Amoris Laetitia that are not ambiguous appear to imply the validity of positions that are contrary to the Church’s perennial teaching. In Paragraph 297, one finds: “No one is condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” Such a statement implies the non-existence of hell and even suggests dissimulation on the part of Christ, who preached about hell almost as much as heaven. Another example of implied error appears under the heading of “Accompanying, Discerning, Integrating Weakness” in paragraphs 296-299, where the document implies that sexual sins can admit a parvity of matter. One cannot overlook in this regard the much discussed Footnote 351, which many—including the Bishops of Argentina—have cited to support the reception of communion by divorced and remarried couples who have not accepted sexual continence.

Finally, some statements at least appear to contradict longstanding Church doctrine, whether formally defined teaching, the constant Tradition of the Church, or Scripture itself. Paragraph 159, for example, rejects the privileged status of perpetual continence. Paragraph 295 seems to doubt the sufficiency of grace to overcome human weakness. And Paragraph 301 suggests that those who act with full knowledge of grave matter are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin."

• Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch titled “CREEPING INFALLIBILITY - AMORIS LAETITIA AND MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY”

 

[OraLabora]

"Some positions in Amoris Laetitia that are not ambiguous appear to imply the validity of positions that are contrary to the Church’s perennial teaching. In Paragraph 297, one finds: “No one is condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” Such a statement implies the non-existence of hell and even suggests dissimulation on the part of Christ, who preached about hell almost as much as heaven.

This is completely false and betrays a proof-texting of the worst kind that is often used to quote the Bible in support of anti-Catholic positions.

If one reads chapter 8 in its entirety, you find this text in the paragraph just before the one you are quoting:

1. The Synod addressed various situations of weakness or imperfection. Here I would like to reiterate something I sought to make clear to the whole Church, lest we take the wrong path: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart…

1. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.

When the two paragraphs are juxtaposed against each other, it is quite clear that the Holy Father is stating that the Church (and by extension her members) cannot condemn someone to hell forever.

This is completely consistent with Church teaching. The Church does not condemn us to hell. Nor do our pastors and confessors. Nor can the laity, our families, our colleagues or our enemies.

It is we ourselves that condemn ourselves to hell.

It strikes me that there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty out there on the Internet concerning AL. A little rigour and critical thinking would, ISTM, be helpful. Plenty of people with the letters “D” and “r” before their names have tried to take down the Church based on proof-texting the Bible and other texts.

It is rather hurtful when Catholics themselves do it to condemn the Holy Father.

I am also reporting this post to the moderators, as it implies that the Holy Father is teaching heresy. It is against forum rules to imply any member of the Catholic clergy is heretical.

One other point that is made in your citation:

Paragraph 301 suggests that those who act with full knowledge of grave matter are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin.

This statement by Dr. Murdoch is in itself problematic from a doctrinal standpoint: mere knowledge that something is grave matter is insufficient to determine mortal culpability. Full consent of the will is also necessary. The CCC says the following about “full consent” concerning one particular grave sin.

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

With respect to mortal sin, the CCC has this to say:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

and

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

(my bold)

If Dr. Murdoch can completely bypass these essential elements concerning mortal sin, how is one then to believe her analysis of heretical elements in AL itself?

 

[pnewton]

Here is an interesting article from Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch titled “CREEPING INFALLIBILITY - AMORIS LAETITIA AND MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY” you might want to read.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/09/creeping-infallibility

Okay, one thing I have always disliked about posting of articles is that posting the words of others is not dialogue. I mean, how can I respond back and forth with an article?

So, in the article I found one statement that where the pastoral and rigid collide:

" Paragraph 299, for example, states that the divorced and remarried “need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church.” …Or does it suggest that one can be spiritually alive while in a state of continued objective mortal sin? Obviously, the latter interpretation, which has been expressly drawn by many, is more than problematic."

First, the answer is clear. Such a person should not be made to feel excommunicated because of the fact that they are not excommunicated. This is not difficult to understand, nor is it new. Second, it is not “problematic” that one can be spiritually alive in and objective state of mortal sin. I am surprised a theologian would even suggest this as problematic because, you know, pretty much all Protestants. The Catechism teaches:

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

It is the very nature of sin being deliberately that either harms or kills the spiritual life. The objective nature of sin is a poor measure of the spiritual being. Her statement in this article assumes a judgment that belongs only to God, namely, that objective appearance equals spiritual reality. The ironic thing is, the actual objective situation in these cases are often unknown, as the best a tribunal can do is rule on what they believe the objective situation to be.

In any case, no, objective mortal sin does not kill one spiritual and in some cases may not even be actual sin.

 

[anthrogirl]

Not only is it affirming that those who have cura animarum are, as you say, to be pastoral…they also are the only ones who have governance.

Lay people may not pass judgment not simply because they will never have all the facts…they have not the competence, according to several definitions of that word.

Agreed. But given those several definitions of yours, not all priests are competent to pass judgement either. We have a priest who assists our parish weekly with Sunday masses. We are a large church with a half a dozen masses and only 1 resident priest. Anyway, a mentally challenged young parishioner dubbed him Father Blowhard as this priest often exults himself during his homilies. He also seems to have trouble understanding the complexities of humanity as his homilies are often laden with “if they would just…” sentiments. Our dear father is also pretty racist and is having a difficult time with our archdiocese’s refugee/immigration efforts. Sadly, the name stuck and is now in common use. Makes me wonder if the human aspects of some priests make it difficult if not impossible for them to use their ordained gifts.

 

[irenaeus1]

Ah, there’s the rub with the view that there is a “gray area” and “ambiguity” in Church doctrines. Some priests have no problem bending the rules and teachings of the Church. Why would they expect faithful Catholics to be obedient to them when they themselves are disobedient to the Church? Some pastors have no problem stepping on the toes of the faithful who want to follow the guidelines of the Church when it comes to the issues of faith, morals, and liturgy. Exactly who is being rigid here? Is it the faithful who yearn to be obedient to Holy Mother Church, or is it those who say that the buck stops with them?..

Another term commonly lobbed at faithful Catholics is legalism. That is to say that obedient Catholics are told they need to be wary of being “legalistic” in following the laws of the Church…

“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (22-1, 3).

Is this to say that the Church is rigid? If you say that, you are saying in effect that God is rigid (and thank God that he is! Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever”). Ephesians chapters 1, 4, and 5 speak of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, of which Jesus is the head. He is the bridegroom of the Church, and thus the two are one. If you follow the teachings of the Church, you are being obedient to Christ. These are not man-made rules and regulations. They are the laws of God, and he asks us to be obedient to them, not in a rigid way but in a way of obedience which leads us to holiness and sanctification.

Sadly, in the Western world it seems sometimes that those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church are in the minority. However, given the revelations in the past few months about some of our shepherds, we will see more faithful Catholics emerge from the ashes. Alas, so too will many, as a result of “gray areas” and “ambiguity” from some of those shepherds, leave the Church.

• Catholic Answers
  catholic.com/magazine/articles/does-being-faithful-mean-you-are-rigid

This is the confusion wrought by the excessive use of gray area (or no black and white), rigidity, etc. as if truth can never be truly known. Just pick your favorite moral issue. After all, it seems the pope is quite rigid regarding abortion, human trafficking, the Italian mafia, oppression of the poor… no gray area there… and rightly so, by the way. Moral issues are always black and white. The complexities of life only make them appear to be gray areas, but that is what discernment is for - to sift through the facts of the concrete situation to determine whether the act in question is black or white - no gray area in actuality.

 

[anthrogirl]

Pope Francis defended himself against critics in a lengthy interview with the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire.

More…

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals.They have their evidence too. The Pope is right to ignore them. No sense in playing out another wilderness scene.

 

[twf]

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals.They have their evidence too. The Pope is right to ignore them. No sense in playing out another wilderness scene.

This astounds me. This is not the Catholic faith I hold. You compare cardinals who respectfully ask the Pope for clarification to those who dissent on issues like abortion and women priests? The attitude some on this forum take to the papacy goes beyond ultramontanism. To simply question the pope on a matter of proposed discipline (who communion may be administered to in this case) is now akin to dissenting from De Fide doctrine? To many on this forum the Pope seems to be treated as a Mormon prophet. I’m not commenting on the present holy father, but it should be remembered that John XXII was publicly corrected and recanted the errors he taught. It happens. Even with popes.

 

[kyrie03]

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals.They have their evidence too. The Pope is right to ignore them. No sense in playing out another wilderness scene.

Are you suggesting the cardinals are dissenting with the Church and/or Pope Francis?
If so, what position of the Church and/or the Pope are they dissenting with?

The cardinals’ initiative, is entitled:** ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia.’** Read through the documentation (less than 8 pages long) and you might be surprised at what they are actually requesting.
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

Look forward to hearing back from you

 

[Thomas_White]

This astounds me. This is not the Catholic faith I hold. You compare cardinals who respectfully ask the Pope for clarification to those who dissent on issues like abortion and women priests? The attitude some on this forum take to the papacy goes beyond ultramontanism. To simply question the pope on a matter of proposed discipline (who communion may be administered to in this case) is now akin to dissenting from De Fide doctrine? To many on this forum the Pope seems to be treated as a Mormon prophet. I’m not commenting on the present holy father, but it should be remembered that John XXII was publicly corrected and recanted the errors he taught. It happens. Even with popes.

I must agree. The forum is for the cordial discussion of issues, or so I’ve always thought. On this thread, much of the discussion has concerned the Dubia presented by the four cardinals. And at issue here, on the thread, is the question of to whom “communion may be administered to in this case”. It is a reasonable question; its answer would perhaps directly affect one or more individuals participating in the discussion. Is clarity provided? Hardly. Is an answer proposed? No. There is rather a disagreement as to whether it is disobedient to even ask the question.

It is concerning.

 

[kyrie03]

This astounds me. This is not the Catholic faith I hold. You compare cardinals who respectfully ask the Pope for clarification to those who dissent on issues like abortion and women priests? The attitude some on this forum take to the papacy goes beyond ultramontanism. To simply question the pope on a matter of proposed discipline (who communion may be administered to in this case) is now akin to dissenting from De Fide doctrine? To many on this forum the Pope seems to be treated as a Mormon prophet. I’m not commenting on the present holy father, but it should be remembered that John XXII was publicly corrected and recanted the errors he taught. It happens. Even with popes.

It surprises me, too, how disregarding Church teaching isn’t considered impious but asking for clarification from the Pope is seen as disrespectful
With such confusion about the role of the papacy, becoming better acquainted with Pastor Aeternus, from Vatican I, would be beneficial.

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”[60]

1. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

An abridged version can be found at ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

Let us pray, as Christ did, that Peter’s faith may not fail, and that he will confirm his brethren and prevent divisions threatening members of the Church.

 

[irenaeus1]

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals.They have their evidence too. The Pope is right to ignore them. No sense in playing out another wilderness scene.

Oh my! Requesting clarification regarding Church teaching now qualifies as dissent?

 

[anthrogirl]

This astounds me. This is not the Catholic faith I hold. You compare cardinals who respectfully ask the Pope for clarification to those who dissent on issues like abortion and women priests? The attitude some on this forum take to the papacy goes beyond ultramontanism. To simply question the pope on a matter of proposed discipline (who communion may be administered to in this case) is now akin to dissenting from De Fide doctrine? To many on this forum the Pope seems to be treated as a Mormon prophet. I’m not commenting on the present holy father, but it should be remembered that John XXII was publicly corrected and recanted the errors he taught. It happens. Even with popes.

The Pope has chosen not to respond directly to the cardinals and basically dismissed their concerns in a public interview. If they end up publicly correcting him, that’s their beef. It doesn’t mean he will agree or recant. I personally believe that our faith is a living and breathing faith. And apparently so does the Pope. We can’t be a universal church and a judgmental church. I think the Pope is correct in leaving the judgment of sins to God. “Who are we to judge” glorifies God. We acknowledge his ultimate power over us and we treasure HIS unending cup of forgiveness. The Earth is his house. We are his children. We are all sinners and we are all equal and loved in his eyes. You, me and the same sex, remarried, multi-racial couple two pews over. All of us. The father of the prodigal son never disowned or chastised his child, even as the son engaged in debauchery. His son was family and nothing his son could do would sever that bond. He never stopped loving him. He never punished him or said he was no longer welcome at his table. He just kept loving him and eventually that unfailing love and acceptance trumped sin. We need to live and teach the word and stop using it to punish or label each other. We are all sinners. Does that mean that divorced/remarried people can wag their fingers at me and you and call us out on our sins. You know, the whole cast the first stone thing. When I judge people, like I sadly do from time to time, I am sinful. I’m filled with hubris/pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Hmmm. How can I judge others and not expect to be judged for judging? Quite the circle of sin there. Anyway, I know that there is a lot of hate in this world and people feel the need to tell others how to live and what to do. But ultimately, that is not our church. We teach and we guide. We are at our best as role models as we serve our fellow man. We are not bullies. Our tools are love, community and sacrifice. It’s through these things that we tend and nourish the Kingdom of God.

The cardinals were wrong in publicly disclosing their letter in order to bully the pope into responding. That was a very disrespectful and spiteful move. The Pope was under no obligation to answer so the cardinals played dirty politics. I’m thinking we need our faith leaders to be a tad better at walking the walk. But who am I to judge? Ewww… I hear a confessional calling to me.