Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

cns ^ | June 5, 2014 | Cindy Wooden

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Those who insist others pray and believe exactly like they do, those who have alternatives to every church teaching and benefactors who use the church as a cover for business connections may call themselves Catholics, but they have one foot out the door, Pope Francis said.

"Many people say they belong to the church," but in reality have "only one foot inside," the pope said June 5 at the morning Mass in the chapel of his residence.

(CNS/Paul Haring)

"For these people, the church is not home," but is a place they use as a rental property, he said, according to Vatican Radio.

Pope Francis reflected on the day's Gospel reading, John 17:20-26, and Jesus' prayer that there would be unity, not divisions and conflict, among his disciples. There are three groups of people who call themselves Catholic, but are not really, the pope said. Apologizing for making up words, he labeled the three groups: "uniformists," "alternativists" and "businessists."

The first group, he said, believe that everyone in the church should be just like them. "They are rigid! They do not have that freedom the Holy Spirit gives," and they confuse what Jesus preached with their "own doctrine of uniformity."

"Jesus never wanted the church to be so rigid," Pope Francis said. Such people "call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the church."

The second group, those with alternative teachings and doctrines, "has a partial belonging to the church. These, too, have one foot outside the church," he said. "They rent the church," not recognizing that its teaching is based on the preaching of Jesus and the apostolic tradition.

Members of the third group "call themselves Christians but don't enter into the heart of the church," they use the church "for personal profit," the pope said. "We have all seen them in parish or diocesan communities and religious congregations; they are some of the benefactors of the church."

"They strut around proud of being benefactors, but in the end, under the table, make their deals," he said.

Pope Francis said the church is made up of people with a variety of differences and gifts, and if one wants to belong to it, he or she must be motivated by love and enter with "your whole heart."

Being open to the Spirit, who fosters harmony in diversity, he said, brings "docility," which is "the virtue that saves us" from entering the church half-heartedly.

[Elsie]

...And under which all is declared to support her as needed.

[Elsie]

It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...

WOW!

---

Let's try some easy math:

There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;

If merely 1% of them  'ask' Mary for help just once each day;

that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.

Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)

...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!

Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!

[Elsie]

My mistake here.

I went back and re-read all the replies in this line of thought and found I’d jumped in with commenting in the middle of a discussion you were having with others.

I mistakenly thought you said that I had made an error.

[Elsie]

My ‘thin air’ assertion has been challenged.

Since I’ve not seen the DATA behind the reason the CHURCH decided to teach that Joseph was ‘elderly’; I’ll continue in my Unbelief of church ‘tradition’.

[Elsie]

That is why they are called the brothers and sisters of the Lord, because they were.

Well; we ARE in agreement here; just differ upon the source of these 'brothers and sister'.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Here is my take on the Wikipedia article under the heading of clerical celibacy:

“The tenth century is claimed to be the high point of clerical marriage in the Latin communion (Catholic Church). Most rural priests were married and many urban clergy and bishops had wives and children.”

Then, in the Sixteenth Century:

“The Reformers made the abolition of clerical continence and celibacy a key element of their reform. The denounced it as opposed to the New Testament recommendation that a cleric should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).”

As to why the policy was implemented:

“...a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices”

Clearly the Church’s policy of mandatory clerical celibacy conflicts with the New and Old Testaments which permitted priests and bishops to be married. And clearly the policy of clerical celibacy was not institutionalized until much later in Church history.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

You’re basically saying I am a liberal, lumping me in with Kerry and Pelousy. Never mind the fact that my politics is slightly to the right of the late Sen. Jesse Helms.

So it doesn’t matter if you agree with 90-95% of what certain organization says, if you don’t agree with 100%, you are subject to expulsion from that organization. Nice.

[Legatus]

Here is my take on the Wikipedia article under the heading of clerical celibacy:

You seem to be suggesting that clerical celibacy sprung from out of nowhere due to benefice abuses but the wikipedia article you referred me to indicates a much earlier tradition and even goes so far as to cite the "husband of one wife" line from Sacred Scripture as code for "not having sex". I didn't come up with that, it's in the article, as crazy as it seems.

The bulk of the evidence in the wiki article itself and the other resources I linked to in an earlier post show celibacy for the higher clergy (deacons, priests, bishops) to be of at least great antiquity if not Apostolic in origin. I don't see how, when all the evidence is considered that can be rejected.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

The facts remain: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Bible requiring celibacy as a prerequisite for service in the priesthood. To the contrary, priests and bishops were married men in the Bible as were popes, bishops, and priests in the early Church history. Further, according to the same article:

“The Council of Trent (1545-1563) consider the matter (clerical celibacy) and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage AFTER (emphasis added) ordination was invalid.”

So as late as the 16th century a priest could still be married as long as he did so before ordination.

Further, the current Pope has recently stated that clerical celibacy is NOT a dogma and the Church is open to change with regards to that policy. I totally agree.

[Elsie]

Would parishioners then call the priest's wife ‘Mother’?

[cloudmountain]

My apologies for the name calling. I’m sorry.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

It would be no different than like it is with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in eastern Europe and the Middle East.

[Legatus]

So clerical celibacy didn’t become the norm until Trent?

Canon II of Session 24 decreed “If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.” Does that mean that prior to Trent polygamy was the norm (or even allowed)?

Just so we’re all on the same page, canon IX of that same session is the one you’re referring to. “If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.”

Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira states “Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.”

Of course Elvira was a crazy council, it prohibited images in churches in case they become objects of veneration or worship (canon 36) and canon 67 “A woman who is baptized or is a catechumen must not associate with hairdressers or men with long hair. If she does this, she is to be denied communion.”

Nevertheless it shows that clerical celibacy was on the table at least as early as AD 306. Yes clerical celibacy is a discipline and not a dogma but it is not a late innovation regarding the abuse of benefices.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Thank you for saying that the Council of Elvira was a crazy council-—so we won’t pay much attention to it or give it much credibility. The Council of Trent in the 1500s was of far greater significance and the fact that the Church was debating policies the Church should follow with respects to married priests is a clear indication that there were still a large number of married priests around in the 1500s or else they wouldn’t have even been discussing the matter. Thank you for saying that clerical celibacy is not a dogma etched in stone and therefore subject to change. The Bible CLEARLY permits married priests and bishops. So does the Orthodox and Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I’m truly tired of being labeled an apostate, heretic, Protestant, or liberal for bringing up the topic. The Pope has said the policy is open to change. I agree with him. Is anyone suggesting he should be excommunicated?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

By this logic we could claim that Aaron was not really Moses’s brother, he was a cousin. Same with Cain and Abel.

No, not where the parents are explicitly mentioned (Gen. 4:1-2).

[ebb tide]

You are comparing the Catholic Church to secular governments: apples and oranges.

You can’t be 90-95% Catholic. It’s all or nothing. That’s why we have Protestants.

[cothrige]

I went back and re-read all the replies in this line of thought and found I’d jumped in with commenting in the middle of a discussion you were having with others.

Oh, no worries there. Personally I always enjoy it when as many people as possible feel comfortable contributing to a discussion. I may get a bit lost sometimes, but it is always good to have people say what they think.

[cothrige]

Since I’ve not seen the DATA behind the reason the CHURCH decided to teach that Joseph was ‘elderly’; I’ll continue in my Unbelief of church ‘tradition’.

I certainly have no problem with that. People have their own ways of coming at tradition. And, just for clarification, I wouldn't say that the Church teaches this particular view of St. Joseph; it is just a very old tradition. And I tend to be uncomfortable rejecting such unless there are good reasons, e.g. archaeological evidence. In the case of these particular ideas about St. Joseph, of his being an elderly widower whose children were the brothers and sisters of the Lord, we can say they are ancient indeed. The Protoevangelium of James, which is not accepted by the Church as being authentic or binding in any way, was written about the middle of the second century and it includes these details about him. Of course, it is a fraudulent document and so isn't authoritative, but its witness is still historically important. It demonstrates that at least by that time, about A.D. 145, these stories were established and being spread. I don't say this as a means of suggesting you should accept any of it, but only to give you an idea of how old it is, which for me is a very important factor for consideration.

[cothrige]

The Pope has said the policy is open to change. I agree with him. Is anyone suggesting he should be excommunicated?

Well, . . . ;-)

[Elsie]

...Elvira was a crazy council, it prohibited images in churches in case they become objects of veneration...

Crazy?

I'd say it was spot on!