"They are part of us too""
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,365
    We have all spent much time trying to understand many statements of the Holy Father.
    Many say, he is misunderstood.
    720 x 878 - 59K
  • MarkB
    Posts: 824
    More:
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-catholicism-all-sinners-are-saints-lgbt/

    Sheesh. Pope Francis is enigmatic.

    He has a pastor's heart. Oftentimes his off-the-cuff remarks, which these latest remarks were, are inadvisable and create confusion, which is the most positive spin that can be put on them.
  • I long for the day that the throne of Peter is occupied by someone who unapologetically embraces the faith he is head of.
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 406
    Could it at all be possible that the Church is wrong on this teaching? Would it be the first time the Church was wrong? Why is this one of the biggest issues Catholics seem to care about?

    I teach high school US History in a setting that offers a wide range of viewpoints. I am constantly reminded of the Scopes trial and the clash of science and religious fundamentalism. My guess is that public opinion has shifted on the central issue over the past 80 plus years. The paradigm is constantly changing and the question is whether the Church should be adapting alongside it.

    Being a political moderate in this forum probably makes me one of the more liberal people here. I'm interested to see where this discussion goes because I think the range of opinions here may be more diverse than appears.

    It seems as if the Catholic Church is going out of its way to push people away from the faith rather than embrace the people we serve. Whether homosexuality is a sin or is not a sin, why do we single out one group of people? It seems as if homosexuals are more targeted by the Church than murderers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, etc.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 824
    Bobby, regarding the doctrine that homosexual acts are gravely immoral, that is firmly scriptural, and all of the Christian world accepted it as revealed truth and a moral certainty until about thirty years ago. The doctrine cannot be reversed because it has been revealed by God to be true; it can also be known to be true through human reason alone, a-la natural law.

    No group is singled out nor targeted by the Church. Some special interest groups have singled themselves out for special attention by clamoring for the Church to change what cannot be changed and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing as they try to get their way. They bring the attention on themselves by ceaselessly demanding what cannot be given to them, forcing the Church to respond, and they are encouraged in their misguided efforts by some equally misguided Twitter priests and high-ranking prelates.

    Public opinion about homosexuality has indeed shifted in the West. Revealed truths and definitively taught doctrines of the Church cannot be reversed, regardless of shifting public opinions about them.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Homosexuals aren’t targeted, specifically.
    Any immoral sexual proclivities - those that do not line up with the teaching of one man + one woman = holy matrimony - are wrong. Why do homosexuals act as though they are such a special group of people with immoral sexual proclivities that their behaviour should be “tolerated,” nay, “celebrated!”? Must we celebrate adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc… or are homosexuals the special group that must be catered to?

    That’s not even what was in the OP, though.

    Francis IS wrong.
    I’m surprised he didn’t include, specifically, “those who sin against the Holy Ghost…”
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,648
    I once read an article where the author stated that every time Francis opened his mouth, one of the cardinals should shove a red sock into it. He often speaks off-the-cuff and says some ill-advised things. Given his foot-in-mouth disease, I am glad he rarely talks about music. I have quit listening to him. If it involves a matter of doctrine the early Church Fathers have said it all, anyway. Nothing more is needed.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw KARU27 RedPop4
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,006
    Must we celebrate adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc… or are homosexuals the special group that must be catered to?

    I don't care about your political leanings, comparing adultery and homosexuality to pedophilia and rape is absurd.
    Thanked by 2mikevp MarkS
  • Must we celebrate adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc… or are homosexuals the special group that must be catered to?


    For the record, there are some that are trying to celebrate these things. There is a reason people on the hard left are referring to pedophiles as "minor attracted people."

    Back on subject... I do try to be charitable and give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. I think he means well. I also think that he does not have the formal training in theology like his predecessors. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both trained theologians who were very good at saying exactly what they mean. Francis was trained more in pastoral work, so he might not be as good at articulating things.

    With that said, these comments are confusing. I think there is probably a nuanced point he was trying to make, but didn't say it very well (see above comments).
    Thanked by 2KARU27 RedPop4
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    They weren’t being compared or contrasted. I simply listed completely immoral things of a sexual nature that someone, somewhere considers his/her right to partake in, and probably considers themselves as being unjustly targeted for.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    This era has proven that Popes, like children, should be seen and not heard.

    This is par for the course in the concilliar epoch: almost every document of the magisterium since, and including, the Council has been 100 pages of impenetrable word-salad: and Francis's off-the-cuff remarks and press conferences (which in my opinion no pope should ever do), are part of that "tradition".
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn KARU27
  • .
  • Communio Sanctorum is treated of by the Catechism. It is a Latin double entendre. Communion of the holy things and communion of the holy ones.

    It includes the Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant. The damned, be they howsoever baptized, are right out, not because of their lack of sanctity per se, but because they no longer have any share in the economy of grace and mutual aid of the wider Church.

    People have brought up the Cathechism of St. Pius X, and rightly so. But can mortal sin be presumed in another's soul? What should our attitude be? That's the Pope's concern.

    As the Church Militant, we are one body. When one member suffers, all suffer. We cannot be indifferent to the sickness of soul of the baptized who stray from the Lord. They are still in reach of our prayers, suffrages, works, and words. They still communicate in the economy of grace by virtue of their baptized character and beating heart, and so in that sense, in the Communione Sanctorum in its broadest sense. They are the recipients of grace with a baptized character and the potential for personal sanctity and eternal beatitude.

    I think the Holy Father's point, which I personally thought was beautifully and strikingly made, and which failed to cause in me the scandal and outrage I'm told by the lay sapientes & periti who predominate in online circles that it should have, was that our role as the Communion of Saints should be passionately devoted to healing and reviving those members of the Body which seem gangrenous and actively dying, not as if they were members of some different Body, but with the concern, care, and incredible urgency that one would take if one's own finger was literally turning black and falling off.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,653
    Really, I think it's his lack of precision when speaking that gets him in the most trouble. You're undoubtedly right: we can't turn our back on those who have fallen away through fault or through folly... but we also can't pretend that those who formally renounce the faith and their baptism do not cease to be a part of the church. His words, taken literally, seem to imply the latter, although if I had to guess, I agree that he probably meant the former. Even the most hardened of sinners have conversions if only there are those to intercede for them.
  • "Love believes all things" applies here, I think, in a special way, to our treatment of Popes off-the-cuff.

    The story of St. John XXIII forgetting one of the Marks of the Church in spontaneous remarks comes to mind. "One, Holy, Catholic, and... er... let's say Roman!" To listen to the Holy Father give the above remarks, however you want to dice it, his meaning is plain, timely, and sincere.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,058
    From reading that Tweet, is there really anything the pope said that goes against the faith? If you renounce your faith, doesn't your soul still retain the mark of baptism? One thing I've noticed from conservatives - both political and religious - is a distinct lack of charity towards those who are different from you.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    One thing I've noticed from conservatives - both political and religious - is a distinct lack of charity towards those who are different from you.

    That is (firstly, humorous) most assuredly not a trait specific to nor indicative of “conservatives.”
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    As I say, popes should be seen and not heard.

    In this age of the internet, of 24-hour cable news, and soundbites, more than ever, the pope should be a 'prisoner of the Vatican': Even Pope Ratzinger's pre-written, clearly-articulated remarks were taken out of context; Bergoglio's spontaneous remarks even more so. And again, if there is one thing that has plagued the Church since Vatican II, it's words, words, and more words: Too many encyclicals, audiences, talks, addresses, press-conferences, etc. I know a priest who once said that it would take someone a lifetime just to read the writings of John Paul II; he was, obviously, being hyperbolic, but he has a point.

    If you renounce your faith, doesn't your soul still retain the mark of baptism

    Yes, because it is a permanent mark on the soul. However, if you (publicly) renounce your faith, you become an apostate, and you put yourself outside the Church, and are therefore no longer part of the Communion of Saints. This is why the Church formerly had public rites for the reconciliation of public penitents, schismatics, heretics, apostates, etc. This was seen as being different from simply being in mortal sin, or just not practicing because of laziness or whatever, where you just need to go to confession, and you're all set to go. Apostasy (the public renunciation of the Faith) is a different kettle of fish.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,648
    I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally. W.C. Fields


    Sometimes I like that.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,900
    This thread is not music discussion. I am changing it to the Opinions category.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,016
    So, if I can avoid reacting too hastily and ponder -
    “The communion of saints is the Church” (CCC no. 946)

    “If one member suffers”, writes St Paul, “all the members suffer together; and if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with him. Now you are the body of Christ and, each according to his part, his members” (1 Cor 12:26-27).
    And the sharp point of this is that I do not just benefit from a share of the virtues of Mother Theresa, I also share the suffering around the vices of Theodore McCarrick
  • Francis was trained more in pastoral work, so he might not be as good at articulating things.


    This excusing of his behavior simply won't wash. John Vianney wasn't well skilled in his Latin, or many parts of his theology, and yet he preached the truth and brought souls back to God through their repentance and his absolution.

    If pastoral is, by definition, not doctrinally sound or thoughtful, then describing the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as "pastoral" is a thorough insult, surely. (Whether it's an accurate statement, that the Council is doctrinally unsound..., is a different question I won't address).

    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,843
    This excusing of his behavior simply won't wash. John Vianney wasn't well skilled in his Latin, or many parts of his theology, and yet he preached the truth and brought souls back to God through their repentance and his absolution.

    If pastoral is, by definition, not doctrinally sound or thoughtful, then describing the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as "pastoral" is a thorough insult, surely. (Whether it's an accurate statement, that the Council is doctrinally unsound..., is a different question I won't address).
    touche, CGZ
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • I might add that what is ambiguous, unclear, unthoughtful and unsound -- if that's what pastoral really means -- is, by definition, NOT binding. If pastoral means what you claim it means, there's no actual, binding, doctrine to reject at Vatican II because everything which previous bound still binds, and everything else is (?intentionally?) pastoral. Pope Paul VI even said it was pastoral rather than doctrinal.

    I don't attend Mass at the Society chapel locally, and have only attended a society chapel Mass rarely in the past. If they must accept the Vatican Council teaching.... I'll say what I've said before: can someone put into binding, unambiguous, propositions the unique teaching of the Council?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,843
    can someone put into binding, unambiguous, propositions the unique teaching of the Council?
    {I hate to say it, but it looks like the system you're searching for (VII...) doesn't exist!}

    "If the item does not appear in our records, it does not exist!"

    "Impossible... perhaps the archives are incomplete!"

    https://youtu.be/iNlqt3pvRFg

    In the movie, the planet DID exist, and Obi-Wan proved it by going there... but in reality, there is nothing binding in VII... it is... a fabrication, and nothing more. It is the 'GREAT ECLIPSE' as reavealed by Our Lady herself.
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    Someone suggested that I read this:

    Lots of stuff about "communion in holy things" vs "communion of holy persons". I'm a bit lost.
    https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-apostates-is-this-communion-of-the-saints/
  • jcr
    Posts: 116
    If one believes that God, in giving us His commands, must be subject to what may be "discovered" or accepted by modern science or culture, then, of course, one must defer to the pop-culture and the pseudo science that influences it and the Church and all Christians will just go along with the zeitgeist. But, if God is God, then be careful to follow His teachings, because the arrogance of men has led us down many a treacherous and destructive path.
    As far as the uncharitable attitudes of conservatives is concerned, I suspect that many conservatives may only be trying to conserve their comfort zones.
    I am a conservative in the sense that I believe that much of the wisdom of the ages is contained in the traditional teachings of human civilization and this is especially so in the scriptures and the teachings of the Church. One must be careful, however, to remain humble enough to question oneself regarding a too hasty hardening of the categories.

    The Liberals I know, are every bit as unwilling to listen very much. Simply try to get practically any one liberal or conservative, to actually have a serious discussion and focus on arguing the argument. I learned in studying philosophy many years ago that bigger and bigger questions are folly. The most basic and primary questions must come first. If you start in the middle as constantly happens, there can be no clarity. Start with the simple, basic questions and then argue the argument. Will see this on The View, or on very many interview programs, or over lunch with your family? Probably not.
    I had the son of Black Baptist preacher tell me that his Father often said, "The man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The changing of minds is a challenge. It is the work of the Holy Spirit!
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Dr. Taylor Marshall posted an excellent new video about this issue.