Top papal aide says Vatican ‘worried’ about Trump’s refugee order

[Vouthon]

I personally would never start the proposed thread on CAF because I think it is overstepping the mark a bit. But remember even the recent history of the scandals. That whole thing sickened me for years - and kept me far from the Church. The Church hushed that up and transferred priests here and there for years. How you can reconcile that with setting yourself up as the original Church of the Apostles boggles the mind. Whole dioceses went down with settlement payments. (money from parishioners) Just recent history - I leave the rest of the far back history of the Church alone here out of mercy. In sum, I agree with staying watchful. But not sniping. Two different approaches. And, yes, staying watchful should always be allowed in open dialogue/debate on a Catholic forum - better there than a Protestant or atheist one. Why should CAF have to censor / clean up Catholics talking about the Church? Think about that one a while before you answer. Pray on it.

The said individuals did not utter such things about the Church until recently, in a changed political environment.

Forgive me for being highly cynical but the “criticisms” - or rather inflammatory remarks unbecoming of a Catholic forum - seem to be politically expedient and contingent upon the holding of explicitly partisan beliefs that are sometimes at odds with Church Teaching. As such, the authority and integrity of the Church to “teach” is assaulted and undermined to justify the obvious dissension from the professed moral truths that they don’t like, with accusations of fiscal impropriety being levelled.

I’m sorry but I am not willing to stand for or accept that.

The same individuals used to be the most vocal “defenders” of the Church against uncharitable detractors, only to become like or worse than them now that a moral or social doctrine does not chime with their own personal beliefs in respect of national policy of a temporal administration, which has apparently become of greater moral stature and validity than the Magisterium of Christ’s Church.

This saddens me. Apparently, if I am to follow the logic expressed to its inevitable conclusions, anticlericalism is only wrong when it comes from a left-wing pointing view. From a right-wing viewpoint, in the American spectrum, it is now a great good worthy of the highest praise.

So Americanism is of greater authority than Catholicism.

 

[Vouthon]

There has been some discussion of policy. But not all of the disagreements are about policy. This thread and others also include assertions that the Pope is outside his lane, that his and the bishops’ teachings are not on morals and therefore not worthy of respect, and even by accusations that they are financially motivated. Discussing policy is one thing. Attacking the very authority of the Church to speak in these areas, and accusing the Church of corruption are another.

The Church’s authority to speak in these areas is not less than its authority to speak on marriage, sexuality and other issues.

Amen.

This forum barely merits the appellation “Catholic” anymore.

 

[pnewton]

Amen.

This forum barely merits the appellation “Catholic” anymore.

It has earned that right. It is a Catholic apostolate approved through the Diocese of San Diego.

sdcatholic.org/Portals/0/content/2017_Organizations_Movements_and_Associations.pdf

 

[Vouthon]

It has earned that right. It is a Catholic apostolate approved through the Diocese of San Diego.

sdcatholic.org/Portals/0/content/2017_Organizations_Movements_and_Associations.pdf

Not the apostolate, whose work I have always praised, I explicitly and deliberately said “the forum”. If I had meant, which I did not, CAF itself as an organisation devoted to apologetics and teaching the Faith, I would have said so. But I didn’t, because I have always admired CAF itself and it is their work that originally attracted me to this forum several years ago. Allow me to explain my meaning.

The forum is an internet discussion board open to anyone who wants to join that is distinct from Catholic Answers - the apologetics and lay apostolate - itself. It was a very good addition for many, many years in that it has allowed ordinary Catholics to become involved with the apostolate but I fear it has now become antithetical in some respects to the spirit of the apostolate.

The forum has now diverged from the good work of the apologetics in critical respects, given the sea change in the way members have expressed themselves of late in relation to the Church.

If anticlerical statements and arguments are reapetedly given free license; the Holy Father is allowed to be unfairly criticized and insulted; the authority and integrity of the Church to teach is denied; the social teaching of the Church is flagrantly rejected…then something is wrong. Very wrong.

And I am not going to back down on that front until this changes because I have spoken with priests who are unhappy with the direction this forum has taken.

 

[James248]

Not the apostolate, whose work I have always praised, I explicitly and deliberately said “the forum”. The forum is an internet discussion board open to anyone who wants to join that is distinct from Catholic Answers - the apologetics and lay apostolate itself.

The forum has now diverged from the good work of the apologetics in critical respects, given the sea change in the way members have expressed themselves of late in relation to the Church.

If anticlerical statements and arguments are reapetedly given free license; the Holy Father is allowed to be unfairly criticized and insulted; the authority and integrity of the Church to teach is denied; the social teaching of the Church is flagrantly rejected…then something is wrong. Very wrong.

And I am not going to back down on that front until this changes.

Apparently Vouthon here would have a problem with St. Paul. He, the “least of the Apostles” challenged the Head of the Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The said individuals did not say such things about the Church until recently, in a changed political environment.

Forgive me for being highly cynical but the “criticisms” - or rather inflammatory remarks unbecoming of a Catholic forum - seem to be politically expedient and contingent upon partisan political beliefs.

I don’t think it is the changed political environment; I think it is the actions of the Pope, including but not limited to AL, the two Synods. (which I don’t think we need to debate here as this is old ground; pretty much every regular poster knows everyone’s opinion, ad infinitum ad nauseum) There have always been two wings of thought - roughly liberal and orthodox Catholics. The history of Vatican II - three factions - is fascinating and very very telling in this regard - leading straight into today’s debates, not missing a beat. Spirit of Vatican II, etc. Were liberals wrong to take issue with JP II? Are Catholics wrong to decry the scandals, corruption in the Church? I think it is naive to push all this under the rug: the desire to do it is disingenuous; it will of necessity fail, undermine the integrity of any that attempt it. Truth is truth. It is not pretty, it is not accommodating, it is messy, people get it wrong, overstep the mark, correct themselves, are corrected, learn from each other. It is called being human. Why set up an artificial controlled environment in which to discuss faith, issues in the present Church? The fact that this is a perceived need tells us a lot. You are placing decorum and appearance above truth. Take AL - there is confusion about doctrine; the Cardinals at both Synods did reject CDR. We still got it. After all that dialogue. Different bishops say different things. This is all off limits? Better yet, it’s Trump’s fault.

I do believe this kind of debate has to come from a position of faith, commitment to truth. Not hate or anger. I agree with you there.

I am talking religious issues; you are talking about politics - but they go hand in hand. You can differ from the Pope in political views. And say so. And still be within the faith. Legitimately.

 

[Vouthon]

Apparently Vouthon here would have a problem with St. Paul. He, the “least of the Apostles” challenged the Head of the Church.

There is a clear difference between polite and respectful questioning of a matter or matters and the unacceptable conduct I spoke about in the aforementionec post.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not the apostolate, whose work I have always praised, I explicitly and deliberately said “the forum”. The forum is an internet discussion board open to anyone who wants to join that is distinct from Catholic Answers - the apologetics and lay apostolate - itself. It was good addition for many, many years but I fear it has now become antithetical in some respects to the spirit of the apostolate.

The forum has now diverged from the good work of the apologetics in critical respects, given the sea change in the way members have expressed themselves of late in relation to the Church.

If anticlerical statements and arguments are reapetedly given free license; the Holy Father is allowed to be unfairly criticized and insulted; the authority and integrity of the Church to teach is denied; the social teaching of the Church is flagrantly rejected…then something is wrong. Very wrong.

And I am not going to back down on that front until this changes because I have spoken with priests who are unhappy with the direction this forum has taken.

It’s really a disputation over what is, and what is not, the teaching of the Church or the specific moral directives of the Pope.

The Pope states things in a very general way, sometimes seeming contradictory, depending on who cites which little snippet to support his or her political position or just plain personal opinion.

There have been complaints on here that the media has misused some of his statements, and it’s hard to deny that it has.

Does Pope Francis really teach that it’s our moral duty to support, say, unlimited immigration or immigration without proper safeguards, both as to individuals and groups? I have not seen him do that, and yet people argue with all the sanctimony humankind is able to assert, that other Catholics are departing from the teachings of the Church or the Pope’s opinions based simply on their own political predilections.

When it comes to specific acts or policies of the state, as long as they are not inherently evil but are based on a balance of one legitimate state interest against another, people are free to agree or disagree with what the media interprets the Pope as saying.

 

[gracepoole]

Apparently Vouthon here would have a problem with St. Paul. He, the “least of the Apostles” challenged the Head of the Church.

All those here who know they’re saints, raise your hands.

No? Then I suggest we don’t liken ourselves too much to them in our eagerness to criticize the pontiff.

 

[Vouthon]

All those here who know they’re saints, raise your hands.

No? Then I suggest we don’t liken ourselves too much to them in our eagerness to criticize the pontiff.

I’m certainly no saint. So that counts me out!

 

[gracepoole]

Does Pope Francis really teach that it’s our moral duty to support, say, unlimited immigration or immigration without proper safeguards, both as to individuals and groups? I have not seen him do that, and yet people argue with all the sanctimony humankind is able to assert, that other Catholics are departing from the teachings of the Church or the Pope’s opinions based simply on their own political predilections.

Of course he doesn’t teach this. And of course no one is seriously arguing in favor if this either. It’s a complete straw man that mischaracterizes the argument.

 

[Michael68]

Not the apostolate, whose work I have always praised, I explicitly and deliberately said “the forum”. If I had meant, which I did not, CAF itself as an organisation devoted to apologetics and teaching the Faith, I would have said so. But I didn’t, because I have always admired CAF itself and it is their work that originally attracted me to this forum several years ago. Allow me to explain my meaning.

The forum is an internet discussion board open to anyone who wants to join that is distinct from Catholic Answers - the apologetics and lay apostolate - itself. It was a very good addition for many, many years in that it has allowed ordinary Catholics to become involved with the apostolate but I fear it has now become antithetical in some respects to the spirit of the apostolate.

The forum has now diverged from the good work of the apologetics in critical respects, given the sea change in the way members have expressed themselves of late in relation to the Church.q

If anticlerical statements and arguments are reapetedly given free license; the Holy Father is allowed to be unfairly criticized and insulted; the authority and integrity of the Church to teach is denied; the social teaching of the Church is flagrantly rejected…then something is wrong. Very wrong.

And I am not going to back down on that front until this changes because I have spoken with priests who are unhappy with the direction this forum has taken.

Some posters have suggested that support for Trump is against the Pope and Bishops which couldn’t be further from the truth. It does a disservice to this forum!

 

[gracepoole]

Some posters have suggested that support for Trump is against the Pope and Bishops which couldn’t be further from the truth. It does a disservice to this forum!

Even if this were true, telling falsehoods about a politician is a disservice to this forum but dismissing the Holy Father’s advice isn’t?

 

[Vouthon]

Some posters have suggested that support for Trump is against the Pope and Bishops which couldn’t be further from the truth. It does a disservice to this forum!

Catholics are entitled to vote as their conscience dictates, so long as they form it in good faith with reference to Church Teaching. How they use their own prudential judgement is entirely up to them. But the judgement does have to “prudent,” with reference to the Church, not “imprudent”.

I have never said that support for a particular candidate is against the Pope or Bishops. That’s for the individual to decide.

What I have said is that when a policy of any administration, irrespective of party, diverges from Church teaching we as Catholics have a duty to say so.

And some recent policies fall under that category, I’m afraid. Others do not. But some key planks of the platform do.

 

[TMC]

It’s really a disputation over what is, and what is not, the teaching of the Church or the specific moral directives of the Pope.

The Pope states things in a very general way, sometimes seeming contradictory, depending on who cites which little snippet to support his or her political position or just plain personal opinion.

There have been complaints on here that the media has misused some of his statements, and it’s hard to deny that it has.

Does Pope Francis really teach that it’s our moral duty to support, say, unlimited immigration or immigration without proper safeguards, both as to individuals and groups? I have not seen him do that, and yet people argue with all the sanctimony humankind is able to assert, that other Catholics are departing from the teachings of the Church or the Pope’s opinions based simply on their own political predilections.

When it comes to specific acts or policies of the state, as long as they are not inherently evil but are based on a balance of one legitimate state interest against another, people are free to agree or disagree with what the media interprets the Pope as saying.

This is what has become the default position of those who support the administration over the Church- to say that the Church is being vague, or indifferent. But the Church is not being vague or indifferent on this issue. The Church has spoken plainly about the morality of these policies. One can certainly disagree, but it is not possible to take the position that the Church has not examined these policies and found them to be lacking. The Church has the same authority in this area that it does in, for example, gay marriage, or contraception. Catholics can choose to disagree, of course, just as many Catholics do on gay marriage and contraception.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course he doesn’t teach this. And of course no one is seriously arguing in favor if this either. It’s a complete straw man that mischaracterizes the argument.

It’s not a straw man at all. It was a rhetorical question.

Personally, I do not think the Pope promotes open borders or no vetting. But one has to recognize that the Pope doesn’t make specific policy pronouncements unless they involve an inherent evil. But people often present his general statements to support or attack specific state actions or policies. And some represent their arguments as being those of the Pope when they aren’t.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s really a disputation over what is, and what is not, the teaching of the Church or the specific moral directives of the Pope.

In your case and that of others it most certainly is.

But I cannot the say the same for all, sadly.

There are certain boundaries that respect dictates we do not cross. Some have and still are crossing that parameter.

The Pope states things in a very general way, sometimes seeming contradictory, depending on who cites which little snippet to support his or her political position or just plain personal opinion.

That’s a valid consideration but I am talking about magisterial texts, not papal “ad-libbing” in a non-magisterial address and context.

I have referenced a variety of magisterial texts from different pontificates and folks on here have dissented from them with not only indifference but sometimes open hostility.

This has left me unhappy, to say the least.

There have been complaints on here that the media has misused some of his statements, and it’s hard to deny that it has.

I don’t deny this.

When another poster put up a thread that misconstrued the Pope as equating Trump with Hitler - which he has never done - I corrected it by bringing up the original source.

Does Pope Francis really teach that it’s our moral duty to support, say, unlimited immigration or immigration without proper safeguards, both as to individuals and groups?

Of course not and I’ve never argued this either to my recollection.

When it comes to specific acts or policies of the state, as long as they are not inherently evil but are based on a balance of one legitimate state interest against another, people are free to agree or disagree with what the media interprets the Pope as saying.

The problem seems to be that the Church’s categorizing of acts as “inherent evils” and understanding of “natural law” rights are, in the minds of some, mistakenly narrowed and circumscribed to a few very limited “non-negotiables” that are merely a subset of the ones actually recognised as such in our sacred tradition.

If this misunderstanding is "collectivised,’ you end up with mass and perhaps unintentional dissent that seems to take on a life all of its own.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is what has become the default position of those who support the administration over the Church- to say that the Church is being vague, or indifferent. But the Church is not being vague or indifferent on this issue. The Church has spoken plainly about the morality of these policies. One can certainly disagree, but it is not possible to take the position that the Church has not examined these policies and found them to be lacking. The Church has the same authority in this area that it does in, for example, gay marriage, or contraception. Catholics can choose to disagree, of course, just as many Catholics do on gay marriage and contraception.

Really? Give me a reliable cite wherein the Pope says Trump is wrong about the reasonableness of delaying immigration for some people from seven countries. And it might be helpful to know, as well, what the Pope has said about the effectiveness of the vetting by the U.S. that has happened so far.

To accuse me of supporting the administration over the Church is rash judgment. For one thing, you really don’t know which administration positions I favor and those I oppose.

Never did I say the Church is “indifferent” to the immigration issues. What I have said, and still say, is that the Church and most churchmen make very general statements about immigration, the duty of the state to protect its citizens, and so on. It does not purport to make specific policy in balancing those interests.

 

[Sarcelle]

It’s not a straw man at all. It was a rhetorical question.

Personally, I do not think the Pope promotes open borders or no vetting. But one has to recognize that the Pope doesn’t make specific policy pronouncements unless they involve an inherent evil. But people often present his general statements to support or attack specific state actions or policies. And some represent their arguments as being those of the Pope when they aren’t.

Not to mention a few posters think disagreeing with them means disagreeing with the Pope.

 

[Vouthon]

There have always been two wings of thought - roughly liberal and orthodox Catholics.

Poppycock!

I’m sorry Follow but you are wrong. There has never been “liberal” and “conservative” Catholicism.

These are importations from secular politics that are utterly foreign to the tradition of the Church.

Different approaches to adapting the timeless deposit of Faith to the vagaries of succeeding eras as doctrinal understanding develops - oh yes, that’s Catholic.

But “liberal” and “conservative”? 18th-19th century enlightenment terms?

Give me a break.

Orthodox and heterodox, sure.

But “orthodox” does not directly line up with “liberalism or conservatism” as defined by secular politics.