Posted on 11/21/2015 11:16:03 AM PST by marshmallow
Pope Francis on Friday described some Catholic priests as so scary and neurotic he keeps well away from them.
In comments that had his audience chuckling at a conference on training for the priesthood, the 78-year-old pontiff revealed he is instinctively suspicious of overly pious candidates.
"I will tell you sincerely, I'm scared of rigid priests," he said. "I keep away from them. They bite!"
Francis resorted to humor to make a serious point that some people who are drawn to a clerical career are fundamentally unstable - and that inevitably creates problems for the church if they are not weeded out.
"If you are sick, if you are neurotic, go and see a doctor, spiritual or physical," he added. "The doctor will give you pills. But, please, don't let the faithful pay for neurotic priests."
As well as assessing the spiritual state of candidates, seminaries should also seek to judge their physical and psychological condition, Francis argued.
"There are often young men who are psychologically unstable without knowing it and who look for strong structures to support them. For some it is the police or the army but for others it is the clergy," the pope added, warning that such disorders inevitably resurface at a later date.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com ...
It is an issue of some question. I don’t think your opinion is unworthy or without merit.
But my guiding principle is to find a route that does the least violence to Church Law and teaching.
What aligns most easily to current Church law would be that the issue wou ld be the matter to be resolved by a Conclave. After all, if a pope is a de facto heretic, even if he cannot easily be judged a de jure heretic, then there is no pope. And a Conclave of Cardinals is to be convened. If the Conclave meets, providing a de jure recognition of the de facto heresy of the automatically-deposed pontiff would be the smallest stretch of Church Law. Then the Conclave could proceed as usual and elect a new pope.
Asking the bishops to act would certainly exceed current Church Law. If the pope is, de facto, a heretic, then there is no pope. And the bishops are empowered by Church Law only to carry out the ministerial tasks appropriate to their pastoral role, either within their own dioceses for diocesan bishops, or within their curial or other administrative roles, as assigned..
I guess I keep going back to what a Vatican I Cardinal said would happen.
Not exactly.
Neurotics, it is said, build castles in the air.
Psychotics move in.
Well, keep praying for Pope Francis. If he’s no longer pope, he needs the prayers all the more. And so do we.
In the nearly 150 years since Vatican I, I think that Church Law has gained specificity about the roles of the hierarchy during a period of when the chair is vacant. Thus making the Cardinal’s thinking was more understandable then than now.
Are these changes post Vatican II? Because if they are, I don’t trust them. We have post Vatican II canon law allowing non-Catholics receive communion without conversion.
What would bring post-VI changes into question? In other words, what would make them invalid and thus innaplicable?
I didn’t say post Vatican I. I’m asking if you are referring to post Vatican II.
Same question: what would bring post-VII changes into question? In other words, what would make them invalid, and thus, inapplicable?
I already explained this. The fact that it allows non-Catholics to receive communion without conversion...something the Church never allowed previously. If you think that’s okay then I guess it makes sense for you to refer to it when discussing other matters. Personally, I don’t trust it and will stick with what the good Cardinal said at Vatican I.
I think we’re done here.
You’re going backward from a supposed result to cause. You haven’t explained what it is in post-VII Canon Law that makes it invald. What is the principle that makes Canon Law invalid?
Why are you pushing this issue? I said I don’t trust it. Why isn’t that enough for you?
And furthermore, I don’t care enough about HOW this would be done. You want to go with Conclave, go with Conclave. Either way, a heretic pope is no pope at all.
It is hardly a matter of life and death. But I like to know why folks hold the opinions that they do, if there is solid, careful reasoning for their opinion or not.
Point is that the Church is aware Of the possibility. One happened during the Decian persecution, although the Emperor solved that by taking out one of the Claimants. I think that during the dark time of the 8th and 9th century, squabbling between Roman famiiies led to a shaky situation. Then we have the worst case caused by the Babylonian Captivity where we have three claimants. the papacy is, after all, a historical development, based on the unique position of of Peter and the prestige of true Roman Church. We are told that Linus succeeded Peter but not HOW.
Good point.
Here’s the thing. I told you why: the new Church Law already contradicts prior Church law in matters of doctrine: it allows non-Catholics to receive communion. It makes no sense whatsoever to use it as a basis for anything Church related if there are already such glaring errors in it. I have much more confidence in a Cardinal who actually attended the Vatican Council that dealt with papal matters.
You just don’t like my reason because you don’t agree with it. Can we be done with this now?
Sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.