Pope's speech to US Congress [full text] [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Being a cheerleader for a particular Pope is not required of a Catholic.
Expressing our concern that the teachings of Christ be properly
taught by His Church is entirely appropriate.
Neither is being a cheerleader for a particular Archbishop. But just to be clear, this is from the nefarious LSN producing snipets and pasting them in a certain order from one particular archbishop. As to his teachings be properly taught, can you name one thing that the Holy Father said that is contrary to the Catholic faith? Not even his critics to that.
It seems that many people don’t realize that the Church is in crisis.
You mean people to not hold the same opinion as you and some others that the Church is in crisis, or what exactly constitutes a “crisis”.
 
Abortion is not **my **“hot button issue” … nor is it merely a political issue.
It is a hot button issue of the Catholic Church,
a grave sin, and one which is being fought tooth and nail at this very time
in the U.S. Congress. Those fighting abortion could have used the considerable
weight of the Pope in their corner had he spoken out clearly against abortion
when he spoke to Congress.
FYI, he did address abortion by making forgiveness for this sin through regular confession throughout the Catholic world. If sin is going to exist in this world (and it is) then making forgiveness more accessible is a powerful way to address any sin.
 
I think the message and example of Pope Francis is leading to the changing of more hearts than we know. People are upset that he didn’t talk more about abortion and gay marriage, but there are some things I think we need to consider.

Pro-abortionists on the Left will often berate people on the Right saying that they want to see these children born but don’t care about whether they are fed, clothed, educated, etc. They use this argument to try and shift a sense of guilt away from themselves; they consider a moral failing on the Right to exist and they key in on that in arguments. Well, with Pope Francis this argument is powerless. This is a Pope who has gone on and on about the importance of helping the poor and marginalized, and yet this is a Pope who also believes abortion to be a tremendous evil, so now what’s the excuse of the pro-abortion Left? You can’t use that argument you use against the typical person on the Right in America anymore. This is a Pope who unequivocally takes the side of the vulnerable both born and unborn so now the question then becomes for someone on the Left: you want house, feed, and educate children, but why won’t you allow them all to be born?

We may not see reactions from people on the Left publicly, but I would bet that many cafeteria Catholics on the Left who are pro-abortion are starting to reflect more on this and feeling their hearts turn towards the Church’s teaching on this issue. I hope and pray that this is the case.
I am on the political “left” and one who has left the practice of the Catholic faith. But in the hope that I may dialogue without being, to use the words of another poster, tarred and feathered. Or without, in the words of the Holy Father, having harsh words thrown my way, I am going to offer some dialogue on this…

I am not pro abortion. I actually don’t know anyone who is pro abortion. I know people who are pro choice but not pro abortion. Though I fully understand others of good will do not understand this difference. But reflect as I have, and yes I will state here publicly that I have reflected this wk. But I have reflected as well on this long before Pope Francis arrived. In the name of religious liberty, how do we force our beliefs on abortion onto women and men who hold a different belief on this issue? There are other faiths, including Christian faiths, made up of people of good faith and of goodwill also, which do not hold the Catholic views on abortion, human life or personhood, on a women’s right to choose. Or for that matter who do not share the Catholic view on contraception and healthcare or civil marriage equality. I struggle with how it promotes religious liberty if only a Catholic viewpoint wins the debate of the day. I see difficulty in balancing rights in a way that pleases everyone. And believe me I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

In regard to Pope Francis, I read on CAF people saying wait til the liberals see he is not changing anything. I never understand what that means. I never expect any Pope to change teaching or doctrine. Doctrinal change is not why I love Pope Francis.

I love his tone. I love his demeanor, his humility. I love when he calls for all of us who pray (myself included) to pray for him. And for those who can not pray? He says, oh to please send him good wishes! And I suspect this wk he has had many prayers and good wishes sent his way!

I love that he seems not so much to put up a wall, saying this is the way it is and take it or leave it. But instead is more than willing to meet us where we each are. Not where he might think we should be. An Episcopal priest once told me, it is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are. And listening to Francis this wk, I wouldn’t be surprised if he would agree.

I love when he tells the prisoners. We all need cleansed, himself first of all. His focus seems less about the bad things we do but the good! I’ve previously heard Catholics refer to a purer if smaller Church. But regardless of the language he speaks in, the words, “smaller church”, don’t appear to me to even be in this Pope’s vocabulary. I love when he says one of the favorite parts of his trip was his time with his brothers and sisters of other religions.

These are the reasons this liberal loves Pope Francis. Not because I expect any changes in doctrine.

Concerns? Yesterday I heard it asked, is the full message of Francis reaching the parishes and the priests? I would include the bishops and laity. I read posts here and I think, do they not believe a Pope can emphasize other issues beyond abortion and gays? 2 issues that have been emphasized for so long that most people more than likely know the Catholic position on abortion and SSM. And the answer was it will take time. But do we have time? I can’t help but wonder if the Pope within the next few yrs will follow the precedent set by Benedict and step down.

We are all products to some extent of our backgrounds and our experiences. And I’ve seen harshness expressed from various places. From priest to laity. I’ve seen frowns if someone shows up but not in their Sunday best. I’ve heard negative comments about those who show only at Christmas and Easter. Yet I do not see these reactions from Francis. My brothers and sisters, time is of the essence. As none of us know how long this light, this breath of fresh air I shall call Francis, will remain Pope nor if the next Pope will continue in the same vein or go backwards in tone.

But this gives me hope. I read Francis said harsh words do not befit the tongue of a pastor. It has no place in the heart. It may seem to win the day. But only the allure of goodness and love will truly convince. And to that I can only say Amen.
 
All the issues the Pope said we should also be concerned about.
Well, let’s go back to the source and try to identify what those issues might be. The text of the Pope’s speech to Congress seems to indicate that we should be opposed to:
  1. violent conflict
  2. fundamentalism
  3. seeing good and evil
  4. unjust structures
  5. new global forms of slavery
  6. worldwide refugee crisis
  7. death penalty
  8. extreme poverty
  9. sales of arms
Does that seem right? Because that would lead me to think that American Catholics should continue to lobby for an end to capital punishment, yet stop seeing good and evil, and they should stop purchasing arms. We are already doing one and other two simply do not make any sense to me.

I think most American Catholics are already not involved in violent conflict, fundamentalism, unjust structuring, enslaving the world, creating refugees or extreme poverty. So that basically brings us to merely continuing to lobby for an end to capital punishment. Was that what you got out of it?
 
In the name of religious liberty, how do we force our beliefs on abortion onto women and men who hold a different belief on this issue? There are other faiths, including Christian faiths, made up of people of good faith and of goodwill also, which do not hold the Catholic views on abortion, human life or personhood, on a women’s right to choose.
I understand what you are saying, but when it comes to abortion, while you may say wanting it outlawed can be seen as enforcing our religion or our morality on others, could not the opposite state of affairs be construed in the same way?

Is not having abortion protected by law an enforcement of a segment of the population’s sense of morality or religious views? How is this substantially different from wanting it illegal as opposed to legal?

Both sides of the issue are expressing their own moral visions with their own religious or non-religious moral justification. Why though must the pro-choice position be considered the default one? At one time it was not, for most of the nation’s history it was not, so why does it occupy such a privileged position now? Why does this particular view enjoy the security of the status quo?
 
I understand what you are saying, but when it comes to abortion, while you may say wanting it outlawed can be seen as enforcing our religion or our morality on others, could not the opposite state of affairs be construed in the same way?

Is not having abortion protected by law an enforcement of a segment of the population’s sense of morality or religious views? How is this substantially different from wanting it illegal as opposed to legal?

Both sides of the issue are expressing their own moral visions with their own religious or non-religious moral justification. Why though must the pro-choice position be considered the default one? At one time it was not, for most of the nation’s history it was not, so why does it occupy such a privileged position now? Why does this particular view enjoy the security of the status quo?
I understand. That’s why I say I don’t have all the answers and that I can equally understand the difficulty it must be to balance rights in such a way that all are pleased. I only know what the SCOTUS ruled nearly 43 yrs ago now. But as citizens certainly Catholics as do all US citizens, those of faith or of disbelief, have a right to express their views. God bless and peace be with you.
 
40.png
Peebo:
I don’t know if there will be a transcript of what Raymond Arroyo said but I was watching it and he definitely did say the death penalty could be “merciful” I can’t quote him word for word but he intimated that it could cause the condemned to seek forgiveness where as he might not if not facing the death penalty…what I did find odd seeing that the Pope along with the American conference of Bishops oppose the death penalty was that a guest priest (can’t remember his name) was in complete agreement with Arroyo…and to be honest I can’t remember if it was Raymond Arroyo or the priest who first made that statement…maybe someone can find the transcript…but yes both of them did agree on the matter

I have since my previous reply about this, learned of the priest’s name. I just had EWTN on and he was with Arroyo again. Fr Gerald (Gerry) Murray.
 
Well, let’s go back to the source and try to identify what those issues might be. The text of the Pope’s speech to Congress seems to indicate that we should be opposed to:
  1. violent conflict
  2. fundamentalism
  3. seeing good and evil
  4. unjust structures
  5. new global forms of slavery
  6. worldwide refugee crisis
  7. death penalty
  8. extreme poverty
  9. sales of arms
Does that seem right? Because that would lead me to think that American Catholics should continue to lobby for an end to capital punishment, yet stop seeing good and evil, and they should stop purchasing arms. We are already doing one and other two simply do not make any sense to me.

I think most American Catholics are already not involved in violent conflict, fundamentalism, unjust structuring, enslaving the world, creating refugees or extreme poverty. So that basically brings us to merely continuing to lobby for an end to capital punishment. Was that what you got out of it?
What Pope Francis actually said was we must especially guard against “the simplistic reductionism which sees only good and evil; or if you will the righteous and sinners.” (emphasis added)

What is it you think he meant?
 
You mean people to not hold the same opinion as you and some others that the Church is in crisis, or what exactly constitutes a “crisis”.
Code:
Google "German schism" and you will find many articles.
" REGENSBURG, September 9, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) - Germany’s bishops are heading toward a major schism with the Church. That’s the latest warning from the Vatican’s chief of doctrine, Cdl. Gerhard Müller.

The head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) was in Regensburg, Germany, last week, where he spoke firmly against “a climate of the German claim to leadership for the universal Church.” According to him, the abysmal record of faithfulness in Germany is hardly a point in support of its self-styled leadership role among the greater Church.

Cardinal Müller stands out as one of only a few German Church leaders who defend orthodoxy, as many of his fellow German bishops, such as Cdls. Walter Kasper and Reinhard Marx, push for radical changes like Communion for divorced adulterers. One of the main ways advocates for this idea (known as the “Kasper proposal”) argue in its favor is by setting supposedly pastoral concerns apart from doctrinal truth, as if the former isn’t dependent on the latter.

Cardinal Müller said the German leaders’ attempts to separate doctrine from pastoral practice is similar to what was behind the Protestant revolt almost 500 years ago.
Thus, he advised, Germany’s heterodox Church leaders ought to “be very vigilant and not forget the lesson of Church history.”

Pope Francis — who has so far been unclear about his definitive position on the “Kasper proposal” — would agree with Cdl. Müller’s point about the unity of doctrine and discipline at least. Last week, the Holy Father lamented the fact that “[f]alse opposition is generated between theology and pastoral ministry.”

churchmilitant.com/news/article/schism-or-catholicism

*"Marx’s outrageous statements were challenged by the German cardinal Paul Cordes in an incisive, and at times, ironical letter to the editor of Die Tagespost, an orthodox Catholic newspaper. Cardinal Cordes, as president emeritus of the pontifical council Cor Unum, spoke with authority. Marx highlighted the need to meet the expectations of Catholics regarding the debate over the divorced and remarried.

They use misleading terms like “new solutions” and “opening doors” that offer only heterodox solutions and doors open to error, leaving people with false hope. While the Church should try new ways to reach those who live lives contrary to her life-giving teachings, she must remain faithful to the gospel.

Let us pray to the blessed Mother, the Queen of peace, to give us the kind of humility, love of truth and true compassion it takes to overcome this crisis in the Church. Holy Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us."*

crisismagazine.com/2015/german-bishops-have-prepared-the-way-for-a-de-facto-schism
 
What Pope Francis actually said was we must especially guard against “the simplistic reductionism which sees only good and evil; or if you will the righteous and sinners.” (emphasis added)
Let me give a real world example, as an analogy, or maybe application of this principle. We have all seen the video footage of police doing bad things. Of course usually only the bad things are recorded and put on the internet. In watching these videos, I have noticed two types of responses to subjects and officer wants to question or detain. The first, the one that gets the officer fired, sued or imprisoned, is seeing a “bad guy” and responding to him being a bad guy. In this officer, the person is viewed as lesser in dignity because of the label he has in his head.

The second officer is one who looks at the actions of the subject. He meets force with force, when appropriate, and drops force as the action of the subject ceases to be a threat. We do not see a lot of this, but it is the way most police act. If the subject is no longer a danger, but needs help, he helps (sits him up, calls an ambulance, answers questions).

So apply this to the statement of the Holy Father and our interactions with others. We do not need to see people and define them by their sin. ( I note that we never seem to give ourselves labels). If we do, then we reduce their dignity as a person by the limitation of that label. Rather we need to recognize each as individuals. Then, as needed, we can address the specific actions, recognizing that the things we do are not what we are.
 
Let me give a real world example, as an analogy, or maybe application of this principle. We have all seen the video footage of police doing bad things. Of course usually only the bad things are recorded and put on the internet. In watching these videos, I have noticed two types of responses to subjects and officer wants to question or detain. The first, the one that gets the officer fired, sued or imprisoned, is seeing a “bad guy” and responding to him being a bad guy. In this officer, the person is viewed as lesser in dignity because of the label he has in his head.

The second officer is one who looks at the actions of the subject. He meets force with force, when appropriate, and drops force as the action of the subject ceases to be a threat. We do not see a lot of this, but it is the way most police act. If the subject is no longer a danger, but needs help, he helps (sits him up, calls an ambulance, answers questions).

So apply this to the statement of the Holy Father and our interactions with others. We do not need to see people and define them by their sin. ( I note that we never seem to give ourselves labels). If we do, then we reduce their dignity as a person by the limitation of that label. Rather we need to recognize each as individuals. Then, as needed, we can address the specific actions, recognizing that the things we do are not what we are.
Continuing that good analogy, there is a 3rd way of policing called COP or community-oriented policing.

My husband and I were involved in a project several years ago to help reduce crime in a nearby city. We drove around an noted signs of “social disorganization” in higher crime neighborhoods, so we created a training program and the PD gave us some 6 officers who were to drive around in ATVs (the PD had recently confiscated 2 from drug dealers). They were to interact with community members, ask them what their problems were, try to engage them in activities, with the aim of planting seeds of social organization, as well as seek solutions to crime, by including POP (problem-oriented policing) in the training. We picked the worse, crime-ridden area of the city, which it seemed even the police avoided.

It was a great experience. The people, esp the kids, loved meeting the police, and the police really got engaged in meeting the people and holding events, such as “movie night in the park,” with family movies in summer, and a sports team, etc. The violent crime did decrease during that experiment, but the official property crime increased. However, people said they were now reporting crimes (most crime are property crime) to the police that they previously would not have reported. Also some officers said they spotted criminal activity, like drug dealing, they would not have spotted without that method of policing.

The project was a great success – community members said they felt safer, that the police are there for them now, and the police felt the experience was highly rewarding for them. They are training more officers in this special way and have purchased some UTVs for it, carrying bottled water to hand out.

Quite frankly to begin with no one thought it would work and now some eager young officers are clamoring to be a part of it. Police morale has increased a lot.

There were other strategies we had them implement, but the gist is this was a positive approach that helped bring the community together so that problems could be solved.

If we do the right things, help communities to become more socially organized so people would not feel alone, alienated, forgotten, left to their own devices, I’m thinking we could even help lower abortion and other social ills as well.

I think this is what Pope Francis would like to see happen.
 
:rotfl:
Yes, the word schism is on that page, but it is off to the side in **another **article, not the one about the Pope.

If you go to the blog that is linked you find the context:
The Lefebvrists are in schism and there are a whole range of progressive “Catholic” denominations that have been founded. Daniel Maguire is an eminent theologian. Is he unaware that these groups already exist?
 
This is the NCR article which I linked to. But by all means, continue to bury your head in the sand.

** Pope Attacked Over Motu Proprio; Cardinal Kasper Reasserts His Proposal**

Reports have emerged that a seven-page dossier, obtained by the German newspaper Die Zeit, is circulating around the curia in which senior Vatican officials have voiced discontent with the recent change in Church law on annulments, and an absence of consultation over the matter.

On Tuesday, the Pope made sweeping reforms to make the process of obtaining a declaration of nullity simpler, quicker and cheaper.
According to Die Zeit, the officials juridically “picked apart” the Pope’s motu proprio (papal decree) on annulment reform, accuse the Holy Father of giving up an important dogma, and assert that he has introduced de facto “Catholic divorce”.

Further concerns mentioned in the document are that, despite the gravity of the issue, no dicasteries, including apparently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as well as bishops conferences, were consulted about the decision — a claim the Register has had confirmed by numerous sources. The dossier says usual legislative channels have been “undermined” as “none of the planned steps of a legislative procedure have been followed.”
Critics say this goes against the Pope’s calls for synodality and collegiality, and resembles an ecclesialized “Führerprinzip”, ruling from the top down, by decree and without any consultation or any checks.

Instead, the papal commission that drafted the motu proprio had been ordered to keep silent throughout the drafting process, probably to avoid the reforms being thwarted by the CDF and others in the curia. But the report also alleges that even the commission did not see the final draft, and that an Italian cardinal along with two others “fiercely” tried to prevent the motu proprio being published before the synod but without success.

The Register has learned via other sources that this decision and others are effectively isolating the CDF and that the Pope is steadily making their work superfluous.
The report also voices concern that the motu proprio will lead to a flood of annulments and that from now on, couples would be able to simply exit their Catholic marriage without a problem.

“A number of monsignors who are officially in charge of directing the affairs of the Church at large, are beside themselves" and feel obligated to “speak up”, according to Die Zeit. They are also concerned about the “extremely vague” language used in the motu proprio, especially the reasons for a speedy trial, such as “lack of faith” or other motives that are not clearly defined.

Although the need to streamline the annulments process gained a two-thirds consensus at last year’s synod, the report also points out that synod fathers loudly protested against the idea of a speedy process for determining the nullity of a marriage under the supervision of the local bishop. Now it is Church law, even before the synod could discuss it.

We hope to look into these claims in more detail in the near future.

Meanwhile, in a fresh interview, Cardinal Walter Kasper has returned to pushing forward his proposal for readmitting Catholics to Holy Communion, saying he is “confident” that a “broad consensus” can be found.
He also said in the Sept. 11 interview with Vatican Insider that it’s “necessary to wisely build” such a consensus over the proposal.

The cardinal’s comments come a few days after many felt Pope Francis’ annulment reform upended the Kasper proposal by offering a compromise to both sides.
Kasper’s remarks, however, show his determination to reassert his proposal which consists of allowing civilly remarried divorcees receive Holy Communion after a penitential period. It also proposes that readmittance can take place after “an honest judgment of the person concerned about his own personal situation” and support from the sacramental confessor. The process would be overseen by the local bishop.

Widely supported by the German hierarchy, the proposal has been firmly rejected by prominent theologians and Church leaders as a serious abuse of the sacraments of the Eucharist, marriage and penance. It also failed to reach a two-thirds majority at the previous synod in October, although the Pope insisted it remain in the list of propositions to be discussed for the forthcoming synod next month.

**Cardinal Kasper’s comments come as tensions rise ahead of the Ordinary Synod on the Family in October. Yesterday, it emerged that 50 concerned theologians have appealed to Pope Francis to uphold the teachings of Humanae Vitae (Bl. Paul VI’s encyclical banning contraception) and Veritatis Splendor (Pope St. John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical underlining the Church’s moral teaching).
**
The signatories, who include Jesuit Father Kevin Flannery, professor of moral philosophy professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and philosophy Professor Robert Spaemann, a close ally of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, argue that **a specific paragraph in the Instrumentum Laboris (working document) for the synod is gravely flawed, effectively emptying Humanae Vitae of its central teaching. **

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-attacked-over-motu-proprio-cardinal-kasper-reasserts-his-proposal/#ixzz3n0vaLjiz
 
If we do the right things, help communities to become more socially organized so people would not feel alone, alienated, forgotten, left to their own devices, I’m thinking we could even help lower abortion and other social ills as well…
I think we forget that making abortion illegal is not our ultimate goal. Our job, as Catholics, is our sanctification (loving God with all our heart) and the sanctification of others. Now part of that is valuing life, or more to the point, loving our neighbor as ourselves. Loving our neighbors and helping them to find hope when face with an unwanted pregnancy is a win/win. Protecting the innocent unborn child is also an expression of that love of neighbor.

Yet what is more important, stopping abortions, or making it illegal and imprisoning those who have them? We started this path of genocide in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. For those who are math challenged, that is 32 years ago, through presidencies under both parties, Congress controlled by both parties, and we are not closer banning abortion than we ever have been. We may never be able to change this law. Lest this sounds too defeatist, I know we cannot ever cease trying. However, in the mean time, our responsibility to the unborn is not abated because we can not prevail legally. We still can bring hope to those around us one mother at a time.
 
This is the NCR article which I linked to. But by all means, continue to bury your head in the sand.
If by “bury your head in the sand” you mean to dare to disagree with sarah j, I shall be so daring. If by burying my head in the sand you mean be a faithful Catholic and support the Holy Father, that too I will do. This is a Catholic website after all.

I am glad you posted that article. You said Google “German schism”. Do you know what word is missing in your article? That’s right. Schism. Since this is EWTN (which I do not always agree with, but do 99% of the time) you will find concerns, but not threats of schism.
 
Jake:

I’ve said it before on this forum – before Pope Francis, I thought the phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” was a joke.

But there are many, many people on these forums that feel they know more about the Church, its Catechism, rubrics, etc., than His Holiness.

It’s not only frustrating and sad, at times it borders on the ludicrous.
Please. Look at statistics and attitudes for the prior two Pope’s Catholics didn’t attend mass; they thought the Church was wrong on fundamental teachings.

Don’t act as though this is some new phenomenon. Most Catholics, statistically speaking, have thought the Church was wrong (and in turn, the Pope) for decades. You may like Pope Francis in particular, but this isn’t anything new to his Pontificate.
 
Please. Look at statistics and attitudes for the prior two Pope’s Catholics didn’t attend mass; they thought the Church was wrong on fundamental teachings.

Don’t act as though this is some new phenomenon. Most Catholics, statistically speaking, have thought the Church was wrong (and in turn, the Pope) for decades. You may like Pope Francis in particular, but this isn’t anything new to his Pontificate.
I assure you it is a new phenomenon for many who were raised and came of age in the Church of the pre-Vatican II era.
 
I assure you it is a new phenomenon for those who were raised and came of age in the pre-Vatican II era.
Seriously?
Have you forgotten about all of the disagreement about the changes wrought
by Vatican II ?
…and much complaining about John XXIII because of it !

There are *still *complaints about Vatican II !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top