Pope Francis: accompany, don't condemn, those who have experience failure in marriage

http://en.radiovaticana.va ^ | February 28, 2014

[ebb tide]

If you are Catholic, and from your bitter postings it’s hard to believe, you need to support your Pope, not constantly criticize him.

It's hard to support this pope, in all things, without disobeying previous popes.

[Legatus]

In essence what you are saying is you know more than God and what is good for His Church.

Are you saying the Holy Ghost picks the bishop of Rome?

[mlizzy]

Then there are a bunch of Catholic writers...who are fully Catholic, and who write about living celibately within that orientation.

Indeed, that is true, Mrs. Don-o. In an upcoming post from Tom O'Toole, he states:

It is one thing to imprison homosexuals for having sex (something no Catholic or Christian would suggest), but quite another to praise them precisely for their unnatural act (notice no one is ever praised by the media for coming out as a chaste gay) which is exactly what our society is unwittingly doing.

So I would like to add to your list of Catholics with SSA, Terry Nelson, a strong Catholic writer (we consider him a friend), extraordinary artist, with a beautiful heart: http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com.

[ebb tide]

He’s the pope that God gave the Church, no one else.

God gives us what we deserve. We've apparently been very, very bad.

[piusv]

I guess I’m wondering where anyone has condemned those whose marriages have failed. What does he mean by “condemn”? Who has condemned and what does that look like?

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are no formal groups of self-identified "glutton-Catholics," "slothful-Catholics," or even "adulterous-Catholics."

If your point is that people shouldn't "identify" with a particular kind of appetite, weakness, or tendency, then I agree with you. Your life shouldn't revolve around your temptations.

However, there ARE people in the Church who "group" according to particular pastoral needs, like there might be a "singles group" or "widows and widowers" or "alcoholics" (a church-sponsored AA group) -- there could even be a "divorced and remarried" support group or a "weight-watchers group" (we have one organized by the Parish Nurse --- some might say, "there's your gluttons"!) ---- people who do seek the spiritual and social support of others who face similar issues and struggles in life.

So from that perspective, it makes sense to have a group like "Courage," which exists to help homosexually-oriented people lead a Christ-centered virtuous life. I respect them. I appreciate them. More power to them.

"If you are not engaging in homosexual behavior, you are not homosexual"

Pause.

I think there has been a lot of inadvertent confusion about terminology. It used to be, until recently --- at least in my lifetime--- that "homosexual" was the word used in psychiatric and medical literature to describe people with a predominant attraction to people of their own sex. That's how the word is used in the Catechism (LINK). It is as legitimate a label as "paranoid" or "bulimic".

It doesn't necessarily mean you're actively engaging in homosexual or paranoid or bulimic behavior; but it does mean you're dealing with more or less persistent tendencies in that direction. It's something you might be seeking help with.

So yeah, you may not be engaging in homosexual behavior, but you may still accurately be called a homosexual, just like a recovering alcoholic might not have had a drink in years, but still knows he's an alcoholic.

The Catholic Church's teaching is that just having that kind of "drive" is a disorder, even if a person is not engaging in sodomy. For instance, not even "inactive" homosexuals are suitable for seminary training and ordination. If they still have that persistent and strong attraction, it's better not to put them into an environment full of attractive young men.

Or would you say it makes no difference, because as long as the man is continent, he is not homosexual?

What do you think?

[NKP_Vet]

Let us pray for Francis, our Pope.

May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. (Psalm 40:3]

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen

[ebb tide]

Amen

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ebb, are you saying Pope Francis is guilty of formal heresy?

I don't think he is. Every pope who has ever lived has been guilty of some fault, failing, misstep, poor judgment, disastrous miscommunication, lamentable shortfall or excess, in matters of governance, discipline, personal and political relations, (think of the blunders of papal diplomacy!), gesture, emphasis, even faulty theological opinions. Yes, that too.

Heck, that applies even Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, in his more imbalanced polemical writings, reads like a proto-Calvinist (yikes!)

Anyhow, back to the popes, any number of dubious policies and fuzzy opinions don't add up to heresy. It's no surprise, and should be no scandal, when even a very fine man has painful limitations. And that's how I'd characterize Francis.

I hope I may be judge and be judged with charity. "Let prayer delight you more than disputation, and the charity which builds up more than the knowledge which puffs up."--St. Robert Bellarmine

[ebb tide]

Ebb, are you saying Pope Francis is guilty of formal heresy?

Please drop the false "claims of heresy" accusation and face the facts: can you yourself support a pope who tells an atheist he go to Heaven as long as he does what he feels is "good"; and everybody has their own idea of "good"?

Can you support a pope who tells Mr. Don-o that he can dump you, remarry in a civil court and still receive Holy Communion?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...a pope who tells an atheist he go to Heaven as long as he does what he feels is "good"; and everybody has their own idea of "good"?... a pope who tells Mr. Don-o that he can dump you, remarry in a civil court and still receive Holy Communion? "

Ebb, for God's sake, be careful! Pope Francis said none of those things.

Inadvertently, I trust, on your part, you have made a statement not founded on fact.

First, the (mistaken) implication about atheists going to heaven for doing good was from the "La Repubblica" interview, which has been discredited for significant fabrication. It's been removed from the Vatican website.

Insofar as direct quotations go, it had no direct quotes, since there was neither a recording made nor notes taken (a rather shocking breach of professional journalistic practices), and the interviewer (Eugenio Scalfari, an 88-year-old atheist) admits it was "reconstructed from memory."

And even Scalfari admitted that the whole discussion on atheists was framed this way (once again, not a direct quote, but the way Scalfari perceives and paraphrases): "Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to Him with a sincere and contrite heart."

You know what "premise" means, don't you? it means the whole statement must be taken with this as the accepted underlying assumption. The "underlying truth" is that turning to the mercy of God with a sincere and contrite heart is necessary in order to be saved.

I have no problem with that --- despite the fact that Scalfari slighted this point made it into a kind of "parenthesis,"--- and yet, it stands as Pope Francis' "fundamental" statement.

http://tinyurl.com/PF-interview-inaccuracies>

Second, Pope Francis did not affirming anybody in dumping their spouse, being divorced in civil court, and being admitted to Communion. Not even by implication.

That is utter distortion, and I challenge you to show where Francis has said that Holy Communion can rightly be demanded by a person living in public, unrepented bigamy.

The only way that the attempted second marriage could be made right, would be if the first marriage were found to be canonically null, or if the second, civilly recognized but bigamous marriage, were undone and resolved into a continent brother-and-sister relationship.

It shocks me how effective the Adversary has been in turning good Catholics into some horrid chimera of prosecutor-judges --- yes, unjust judges, who accept the concoctions of perjurers and fools, extrapolate from tenuous evidence, demand worst-case interpretations of vague and ambiguous testimony, and render their judgment without proof.

I wouldn't treat my enemy like this--- really I wouldn't --- much less my Holy Father.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you so much for this, mlizzy! I looked up Terry Nelson, and am enjoying him. Thank you Thank you!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Tagline courtesy of Pope Benedict XVI.

[ebb tide]

First: It was posted on the Vatican website for over two months and the Pope’s spokesman stated the Pope had vetted it and it was essentially correct.

Second: The Pope has been pushing for Holy Communion for adulterers since his plane ride back from Brazil.

[ebb tide]

Gianguido Vecchi:

Holy Father, during this visit too, you have frequently spoken of mercy. With regard to the reception of the sacraments by the divorced and remarried, is there the possibility of a change in the Church’s discipline? That these sacraments might be an opportunity to bring these people closer, rather than a barrier dividing them from the other faithful?

Pope Francis:

This is an issue which frequently comes up. Mercy is something much larger than the one case you raised. I believe that this is the season of mercy. This new era we have entered, and the many problems in the Church – like the poor witness given by some priests, problems of corruption in the Church, the problem of clericalism for example – have left so many people hurt, left so much hurt. The Church is a mother: she has to go out to heal those who are hurting, with mercy. If the Lord never tires of forgiving, we have no other choice than this: first of all, to care for those who are hurting. The Church is a mother, and she must travel this path of mercy. And find a form of mercy for all. When the prodigal son returned home, I don’t think his father told him: “You, sit down and listen: what did you do with the money?” No! He celebrated! Then, perhaps, when the son was ready to speak, he spoke. The Church has to do this, when there is someone… not only wait for them, but go out and find them! That is what mercy is. And I believe that this is a kairos: this time is a kairos of mercy. But John Paul II had the first intuition of this, when he began with Faustina Kowalska, the Divine Mercy… He had something, he had intuited that this was a need in our time. With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…), I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage. And so it is a problem. But also – a parenthesis – the Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of what they call oikonomia, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem – and here I close the parenthesis – must be studied within the context of the pastoral care of marriage. And so, two things: first, one of the themes to be examined with the eight members of the Council of Cardinals with whom I will meet on 1-3 October is how to move forward in the pastoral care of marriage, and this problem will come up there. And a second thing: two weeks ago the Secretary of the Synod of Bishops met with me about the theme of the next Synod. It was an anthropological theme, but talking it over, going back and forth, we saw this anthropological theme: how does the faith help with one’s personal life-project, but in the family, and so pointing towards the pastoral care of marriage. We are moving towards a somewhat deeper pastoral care of marriage. And this is a problem for everyone, because there are so many of them, no? For example, I will only mention one: Cardinal Quarracino, my predecessor, used to say that as far as he was concerned, half of all marriages are null. But why did he say this? Because people get married lacking maturity, they get married without realizing that it is a life-long commitment, they get married because society tells them they have to get married. And this is where the pastoral care of marriage also comes in. And then there is the legal problem of matrimonial nullity, this has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this. It is complex, the problem of the pastoral care of marriage. Thank you.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_en.html

[ebb tide]

It shocks me how effective the Adversary has been in turning good Catholics into some horrid chimera of prosecutor-judges --- yes, unjust judges, who accept the concoctions of perjurers and fools, extrapolate from tenuous evidence, demand worst-case interpretations of vague and ambiguous testimony, and render their judgment without proof.

So who's doing the judging, Kettle?

[mlizzy]

You’re welcome, Mrs. Don-o. Terry has a splendid sense of humor, too, that I was certain you would enjoy! Avid gardener as well!

[Mrs. Don-o]

1. It was on the website because Pope Francis never anticipated tat his words, already redacted, sieved, cropped and framed (probably naively) by this dotty editor, would be further misinterpreted in an obviously non-Catholic way by Catholics who should know better. It was taken down because he's beginning to realize that he'd overestimated the ability of Catholic readers to "assume the fundamentals".

Your second statement is yet another case of getting on the diving board and launching yourself w-a-yyyy out there to the far end of the pool.

I'll stick my neck out here and predict what I think will come out of this upcoming marriage powwow. I think they're going to drop the appeals to Rome, speed up purely "documentary" cases at the Diocesan level, and reserve certain specified kinds of cases to the pastor (as they sometimes do, as I understand it, under the Canons of the Eastern Churches.)

Remember that Benedict XVI indicated the correct way to understand papal statements,namely, the "Hermeneutic of Continuity." If there's a papal (or conciliar or synodial or etc.) statement that is ambiguous, and could be interpreted in an orthodox or a heterodox way, we're obliged to assume the orthodox interpretation.

And moral prudence requires that we do that for everybody. You always assume the best, most charitable interpretation. Otherwise we (you and I) could be in danger of rash judgment, detraction, and slander --- as well as scandal --- all of which are morally toxic, and especially damaging when the offense is against our ecclesial shepherds.

I repeat, in the tagline the quote from +BXVI

[piusv]

Anyone have an answer to my post #25? Because I think it could shed some light on what is going on here:

I guess I’m wondering where anyone has condemned those whose marriages have failed. What does he mean by “condemn”? Who has condemned and what does that look like?

Is Francis suggesting that not allowing communion to the- remarried-without-an-annulment is a form of condemnation? We know that the divorced-not-remarried and the remarried-with-annulment already do receive communion (so they aren't being condemned, right?). Because I'm really not seeing a whole lot of condemnation of the divorced in people's words or actions these days. In fact, on the contrary, divorce seems to have been accepted by most.

[ebb tide]

See Post 35. That is what the Pope said on the plane, coming back from Brazil.

So who’s on the diving board now?