Last week marked Pope Francis's first (and hopefully not last) visit to the U.S. I was unable to watch much TV, but did tune in for highlights and commentary about his address to Congress and the U.N. I also listened to talk show hosts processing his visit when I was driving here and there.

What stood out for me most was his calm and gentle presence. More than the content of his messages, it seems that the man himself made a huge impression on others. Even when challenging us to be more generous and less materialistic, he was loving and inviting rather than harsh and caustic. One could not escape the perception that here was a good and holy man, whose life and spirituality are rooted deeply in the Gospel.

I was happy to hear him affirm the importance of education, which is the main road out of poverty, and entrepreneurial spirit, which is the driving force behind the kind of job creation that small businesses provide. There is surely a place for government intervention to provide assistance to those in need, but Francis did not spend much time harping on this theme.

Talk radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh were busy painting the Pope as a socialist and someone ill-equipped to speak on the topics he was presenting. Because the Pope mentioned Dorothy Day as a model of faith and charity, Limbaugh found quotes wherein she criticized capitalism and was leaning toward communism. Remember that Dorothy Day's street ministry began during desperate times, when large numbers were out of work and were struggling for the basics. It was not capitalism's best moment, for sure, but it was so wrong to try to paint the Pope as a communist.

Actually, what Pope Francis is doing in his talks on immigration, capital punishment and other topics is publicizing teachings that have been affirmed in Catholicism for decades. An old saying goes that "Catholic social teaching is the Church's best kept secret," but not any more! How wonderful to have the Catholic Church in the news about this subject matter rather than, say, clergy sex abuse and other dark issues.

What's new and rather characteristic of Pope Francis's message is his emphasis on taking action about climate change. We are studying Laudato Si, his encyclical on this topic, at the retreat center, and I'm enjoying it. Readers of this board will know from other discussions that I've been skeptical of the incredible claims made by some concerning the impact of climate change on Earth's future. I've never doubted that humans have an impact on the environment, nor that CO2 and methane in the atmosphere contribute to holding in more heat -- the greenhouse effect. That's scientifically demonstrable. But how much? And what impact? Here we must resort to computer models that are attempting to assess a dynamic, living planet. I've also been suspicious of an anti-Western bias among those who harp on this topic to clip the wings of Western economies.

Still, it's obvious that climate change is an issue that we must face together, for no nation can do it alone. Pope Francis is one of the few people in the world who can call the world to take integrated action on this and other important issues. He does so with a credible voice, and is a blessing to us in these times.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

That’s a nice and balanced summary, Phil!
I too am impressed by Pope Francis.

The last time I sensed that we truly had “a good and holy man” as Pope was during the all-too-brief reign of John Paul. (John Paul the First, mind you, i.e. Albino Luciani.)

Good to see your name in lights here again, HP.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wish we'd had more time to get to know Pope John Paul I.

Unfortunately, after the shenanigans at the synod and the speech (of the Pope) that followed it, I am not at all fond of this pope. The more time passes, the less "good and holy" he appears to me. I cannot fathom why any pope, much less a good and holy one, would cause so much scandal by supporting heretical clergy, giving them so much power and influence and trying to legitimize their heterodox views! The last pope who did that was anathematized by an ecumenical council and denounced by a few of his successors! (Honorius I) I find myself in the strange position where I do not feel that natural affection/openness to the pope that had always been so natural when St. JP II and Pope Emeritus BXVI were popes.

This synod business nearly destroyed my faith this past year, for among all the problems I had, I never expected doubting the church to be among them. The church has always been that rock. But thanks to Pope Francis' very poor and careless (in my view) opening up of settled matters and presenting them as if they were legitimate debating points, the entire edifice of the church as that which can never lead me astray seemed to come tumbling down. And if the church cannot be trusted, then is Jesus true? Who is Jesus to me without the church? The Jesus in my mind is an icon painted by the church. This was a terrible thing to find oneself thinking in the midst of other normal problems. Never have I ever truly been tempted to leave the church until this strange scandal from Rome. I have decided that the only way to be at peace is to try and ignore news from Rome until another pope is there. Such news presents a fresh new crisis every time I hear it, these days. We are not all so strong in our faith and it is not the pope's job to shake that for no good reason.

St. Rubia, I have heard others share similar opinions about Pope Francis, but I don't understand where this is coming from. For example, what heretics is he supporting? And what did the synod do that has shaken your faith so deeply? Most of it pertained to pastoral issues, not doctrinal ones. What's really bothering you, here?

Well, I'm not sure what are links of the Holy Father with card. Walter Casper.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news...E2%80%99-heart-29972

Walter Casper is a very liberal (heretical?) theologian and there are more bishops like this in Germany who, as I heard, in many cases accept sacrilegious acts like giving communion to people living in public sin and turning churches into nice discussion clubs.
Casper also celebrated the eucharist and burial ceremony of brother Roger. Brother Roger seemed to be a man of deep faith, but he was a Protestant, so this eucharist seems to be a little bit controversial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GluVH-yMpIs

I also have my doubts about Pope Francis. One thing is that he seems to give a lot of information that cannot be controlled to the media (interviews, news about his phone calls) which doesn't fit the dignity of papacy and raises doubts and questions. Like he saying that people who have more than 5 children shouldn't be like "rabbits", but be reasonable. I also read that in a phone conversation with a woman from South America who was divorced and wanted to receive communion, he allegedly said to her that this "little piece of bread" shouldn't be a problem (which, if it were true, would be something terrifying to say by a Holy Father). It might be just bad way of communicating with the media in contemporary world. But...

I also don't believe his idea of being "open" and nice to people in order to evangelize is a good one. We can discuss this if it wasn't discussed here yet.

Pope Francis is a different kind of Pope, that's for sure -- much more "populist" than even Pope John XXIII. He seems genuinely more interested in the experiences of common folk than any Pope in recent memory, and there is a kind of "anti-intellectual" attitude about him. He also seems less enamored with traditional piety and devotion than previous Popes, and yet he is unquestionably a man of prayer. I consider the change in his papacy to be more a matter of style than substance; he hasn't advocated for changing a single doctrinal teaching that I'm aware of.

I don't know about the charges of heresy with regard to Walter Casper. People use that term loosely, of course, but it also has a formal meaning in Catholicism and is only used after their works have been reviewed by the CDF. I don't see where any process of review of anything he's said or written is underway. Do any of you have anything?

There is an orthodox, progressive kind of Catholicism that we haven't really seen since Pope John XXIII. And let's not forget that even Pope John Paul II took a lot of heat for convening leaders of world religions in Assisi to pray together. A Pope praying with Protestants, Buddhists, and Hindus?! Many were scandalized, or thought he was condoning their religious beliefs, or equating all religions. He did nothing wrong or un-Catholic, of course.

Pope Francis is who he is, that's for sure. Who knows but his style and manner of leadership aren't precisely what the Church needs during these times? The Holy Spirit must have thought so when a group of Cardinals chosen mostly by Pope John Paul II and Benedict elected him.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
St. Rubia, I have heard others share similar opinions about Pope Francis, but I don't understand where this is coming from. For example, what heretics is he supporting? And what did the synod do that has shaken your faith so deeply? Most of it pertained to pastoral issues, not doctrinal ones. What's really bothering you, here?

Phil, have you been following the synod on the family? Let me first explain why I view the pope as I do and later my spiritual crisis.

Kasper and his fellow germans proposed "pastoral" solutions that were positively heretical. This heresy was publicly highlighted by cardinal Muller (CDF chief) and Cardinal Sarah and many others. The idea that being pastoral allows us to act as though Jesus' words are meaningless is heretical. You might as well just announce that faith is enough, no works needed here! You just need to say you believe Jesus, you don't have to actually LIVE this though...faith, but not necessarily obedience. This is exactly the "christological heresy" that cardinal Sarah highlighted when he rejected this "solution". You don't get to deny Christ's lordship in your behavior just be labeling it b"pastoral". Pastoral is based on truth and truth is NOT contradictory to mercy.

Up until this last synod in 2015, it was unclear whether the pope is himself of this view or whether he is merely allowing the Germans to have their say openly in order to avoid a schism (which they seem to have been threatening from last year). But more and more, it has become very difficult for all those who have been giving the pope benefit of the doubt to sustain the idea that he is not himself behind this or at least lending the power of his office to promote this as legitimate. This solutions were rejected very cleary by JPII an d Benedict XVI as "impossible", not just unlawful per canon law but impossible per doctrine, for to do this would require the church to abandon either of its doctrines concerning

1) the indissolubility of sacramental marriage or
2) the requirement to repent in order to free oneself from sin, and that repentance must always involve a true intention to leave behind the sin concerned as one heads into the future
or
3) the duty not to receive communion without having repented of grave sin

More than this, the Germ ans were floating the idea that the church should recognize the goodness of homosexual unions and cohabitation....why? Should the church also recognize whatever goodness there may be in keeping a mistress on the side besides your wife? Or in any sin? Since when is it the church's business to go around recognizing the goodness to be found in sin rather than waking us up to the harm (the evil) there is in sin so we can leave it behind?

Last year's synod saw this statement sneaked into the mid-way relatio which caused an outcry. It became clear manipulation was going on by the pope's appointees who were trying to make the bishops say or appear to say things they never did. This alert meant that all year, the orthodox bishops have been alert. What did the pope do? You would expect him to at least change the persons so that the bishops would be at ease, but no. He reappoints the same people who were caught trying to make the bishops seem to support homosexual unions by the back door and moreover, he stuffs the synod with 45 liberal appointees who were not elected by their own conferences to represent the different churches. He then changes the rules so that the bishops would not be able to vote for each paragraph to be written by the writing committee he has stuffed with 7 liberals. They fought back and complained and the pope was forced to allow them to vote for each paragraph so that nothing would be sneaked in like last year. On top of that, the "working document" was supposed to be the basis of the discussion written by francis' appointees, with no scripture or church tradition to be found therein. Only modernist sociological stuff. And this is a bishops synod....

After the synod, when it was clear that despite all the stuffing and the working document that the Germans (and the pope, as it is now clear) did not get their way, the pope gave a speech that was nothing short of an insult to defenders of catholic truth. Francis seems to be preaching that catholic doctrine is contrary to mercy, because he seems to assume the only motive for resisting these changes which two of his predecessors have termed impossible due to their theological implications, and for defending a 2,000 year old discipline of the church based on Christ's own clear teaching, that the only motive they would have is being unmerciful. In the brave new world of pope Francis, defending catholic truth makes you a "pharisee", and being open to contradicting the church's truth whether in doctrine or in practice, makes you "merciful".....That would be a very strange idea of mercy to me, indeed. Can this group claim that Jesus was unmerciful when he said the second marriage was adultery? Moses had exercised this mercy of the Germans and Jesus corrected him by restating the truth as it was "in the beginning". Now we have catholic bishops and a pope who seem to think that the Moses solution was the more merciful one.


It was also noted by other bishops during the synod, the message of despair behind those offering these "pastoral solutions"....they don't seem to believe that we have grace! That it is possible to leave these things behind. Their thought process shows little evidence of the conviction of grace and Christ's victory over sin and the call to sanctity. Kasper even said not everyone can live heroically. As if the call to leave our sins and follow Christ is for heroes and not every single christian.

Moreover, the pope is constantly lending himself to misrepresentation.....giving interviews to a journalist that the Vatican keeps "correcting" and then he refuses always to clarify his statements once there's confusion. He doesn't seem to mind that he is one of the non-catholic liberals' authorities for supporting homosexual sins and calling those who don't support them in the church's name "hypocrites" and pharisees. I just don't understand why a pope would be so comfortable with such confusion around the teachings of the church. And I'm done defending him over his carelessness or bending over backwards to make his behavior mean something other than what the logic says it means. The only reason I'm still catholic is that I reminded myself that it is Jesus who protects the church, not the pope. In fact, Jesus may have to protect the church against a pope who is more of a stumbling block, so having a pope clearly leaning towards heresy is not an excuse to leave Jesus himself, if Jesus is still in the church.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Pope Francis is a different kind of Pope, that's for sure -- much more "populist" than even Pope John XXIII. He seems genuinely more interested in the experiences of common folk than any Pope in recent memory, and there is a kind of "anti-intellectual" attitude about him. He also seems less enamored with traditional piety and devotion than previous Popes, and yet he is unquestionably a man of prayer. I consider the change in his papacy to be more a matter of style than substance; he hasn't advocated for changing a single doctrinal teaching that I'm aware of.

I don't know about the charges of heresy with regard to Walter Casper. People use that term loosely, of course, but it also has a formal meaning in Catholicism and is only used after their works have been reviewed by the CDF. I don't see where any process of review of anything he's said or written is underway. Do any of you have anything?

There is an orthodox, progressive kind of Catholicism that we haven't really seen since Pope John XXIII. And let's not forget that even Pope John Paul II took a lot of heat for convening leaders of world religions in Assisi to pray together. A Pope praying with Protestants, Buddhists, and Hindus?! Many were scandalized, or thought he was condoning their religious beliefs, or equating all religions. He did nothing wrong or un-Catholic, of course.

Pope Francis is who he is, that's for sure. Who knows but his style and manner of leadership aren't precisely what the Church needs during these times? The Holy Spirit must have thought so when a group of Cardinals chosen mostly by Pope John Paul II and Benedict elected him.

I used to see Pope Francis like you do.....just a simple pastor. The synod totally changed my mind and I see him and his choices in a very different light now.

And that's another thing...his election. With public admissions by cardinals that it was plotted by the same group that, like Judas Iscariot colluded with the church-hating media to make pope Benedict's term as pope miserable as possible and basically hounded him out of office, I have less reason to believe that he was chosen by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the Holy Spirit allowed him to occupy the office and to become a true pope, this I may now doubt but totally accept on the authority of church teaching and law....but I don't believe it is catholic teaching that it is the Holy Spirit and not the church that chooses the pope. Remembering some of the evil men who have occupied it in the mideaval past also reinforces this belief.

All that the Holy Spirit promised is that he will not allow the church, whether in the person of the pope or in an ecumenical council or ordinary magisterium, to teach us error. This means a pope could be wrong about everything that leaves his lips which does not amount to an ex-cathedra teaching. In my view, there is no longer much reason to wonder about Francis and his sympathies. I'm just glad that only his ex-cathedra teachings are binding and think that is only by the grace of Christ that he has not issued one.

St. Rubia, I'm thinking every papal election is rife with politicking and shenanigans that might seem unworthy of the task at hand, but, then, we're dealing with human beings! Remember that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas by pulling lots. As the old saying goes, "God writes straight with crooked sticks."

The Synod on the Family sounds a lot like what went on with Vatican II -- a time to surface ideas that had been percolating, to discuss and evaluate them, to politic for them, to pray and listen, the evaluate and decide. Messy business! People were afraid that the RCC would emerge from the Council with all sorts of changes in doctrine, but nothing of the sort happened. But a new spirit of engagement with the culture emerged in all areas of church life . . . except for human sexuality issues, which had been taken out of the Council's realm and delegated to a separate Commission. The rest is history. So the Synod is re-visiting teachings that the Council didn't have a chance to review and consider, and that's a good thing.

As for the Synod results: what, specifically, do you take objection to? Where's the heresy?

Please remember that the RCC recognizes a hierarchy of truth -- that not all teachings are equally binding. You can't mess with the Creed and other matters of high theology, but many moral teachings can and have been modified through the centuries, especially those based on Natural Law. That's not a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that the Church is wishy washy. Teachings based on Natural Law (e.g., birth control, much of those on homosexuality) are contingent on our understanding of nature, which does change. The moral principles at stake remain, but their application can shift to reflect new understandings. To my thinking, this is a fine example of the Spirit continuing to lead the Church into the fullness of truth, as Christ promised (it's not just about protection from error).

Respectfully, Phil, I have to disagree with what I think you're saying....and I could very well be wrong in my understanding. If so, then please correct me.

I have no problem with what the Synod said. I was very relieved, in fact. The pope's reaction to their refusal to open communion to those in states of public sin was a not-very-thinly-veiled uncharitable scolding in a speech. It became very clear after that speech, both to the orthodox and the liberals, that the pope was angry with the outcome. The synod revealed his lack of transparency, all the machinations that went into trying to get the bishops to give him a document he could use to say the discipline has changed without being blamed for this change.

I don't know about the gradations of doctrine you refer to but I do know this: the church's teaching on sexuality and marriage is based on divine revelation, not just a philosophical perspective. And natural law on sexuality is based on the same facts taught in revelation: the complementarity of male and female as part of the very nature of man. Are you suggesting that these will change based on whatever new models scientists come up with about sex? Male and female made he man, says God, twice, in Genesis, and Christ himself, because it was not good that man should be "alone". That's the meaning and context of human sexuality, and this is part of catholic truth for 2,000 years (and before, with the Jews). If you look at the early fathers, you will see that they did not know much of St Thomas Aquinas' philosophy and explications of natural law, which only became mainstream after St Thomas himself in the middle-ages. They did not need his philosophical paradigm to know that sex was moral only in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman. This cannot change. These teachings are based directly on the Lord's own unambiguous declarations and supported by our own observance of human nature and its two complementary sexes.

The Kasper proposal suggest either that that this divine design of man's sexuality as the catholic church perceives it is a false understanding, or that we are not bound to obey the demands of moral law if they prove "hard". And yet we see Jesus again and again not even softening truth for those who found his teachings simply too difficult! One of those complaints concerned this very teaching on marriage. The disciples thought it was just so hard one may as well just not marry if to do so means you can never divorce and remarry. And Jesus does not soften it for them, either. So what right would the church have, today, 2000 years later, over and above the apostles, to the same complaint..."it's just too hard"?? Why would we think that Christ's answer today to Kasper and those who think like him, would be different than the answer he gave to Peter, James, John and Andrew?

As to growing into the fullness of truth, the church does not need to repudiate its own 2000 year old doctrines, for to do that would mean the church taught us error for 2,000 years. I refuse to believe such a thing. As Cardinal Henry Newman taught, genuine development of doctrine never involves contradictions with what was already taught, only a growth, never what another Cardinal (Pell?) called "doctrinal backflips".

quote:

I don't know about the gradations of doctrine you refer to but I do know this: the church's teaching on sexuality and marriage is based on divine revelation, not just a philosophical perspective. And natural law on sexuality is based on the same facts taught in revelation: the complementarity of male and female as part of the very nature of man. Are you suggesting that these will change based on whatever new models scientists come up with about sex?

St. Rubia et al, check out the link below that is a very helpful clarification of different kinds of Catholic teachings and the duties of a Catholic toward teach level.
- http://www.liguorian.org/files...%20Teach_Textpdf.pdf

Many of the issues debated at the Synod pertained to Canon Law and Church practice. Sometimes it's difficult to find the link between these laws and Divine Revelation. The Pope is definitely leaning toward a more lenient response regarding many issues, but I've still yet to hear of an area where he is in err. At any rate, consider the absurdity of questioning the Catholic commitment of the Pope.

There's little doubt that heterosexual monogamy is the ideal for marriage held forth by Scripture, including Christ's own teaching on this matter. I don't think the Synod ever considered questioning or changing that. Rules governing annulments and the status of divorcees is more fluid, the former being influenced by our understanding of psychological maturity, for example. Teachings on the morality of artificial contraception have only a tenuous connection with Scripture and are more based on Natural Law reasoning. Consider that it wasn't until the 19th C. that a woman's fertility cycle was well understood, and how this has influenced thinking on the subject since. E.g., there's obviously an infertile time of the cycle each month; if a couple knowingly uses this time for sexual relations to avoid pregnancy, is that moral? The initial response of the Magisterium was that it was immoral, and gravely so. Then Pope Pius XII gave the "all clear" for the "rhythm method" in the 1950s, and Humane vitae acknowledged a unitive dimension of human sexuality that's just as important as the procreative. Artificial contraception was still condemned as "intrinsically evil," but the practical distinctions between non-abortive forms of AC and Natural Family Planning (a more precise form of rhythm) are difficult to establish. Last I saw, over 80% of Catholics couples use some form of AC; one could make the case that the teaching hasn't been accepted by the faithful.

But my main point here is that the birth control teaching is one that has undergone some development during the past century, in large part because of our deeper understanding of the biological and psychological dimensions of human sexuality. Something similar has happened with regard to homosexuality. Revelation sheds only so much light on these topics; ongoing study, dialogue and discernment with married couples, scientists, moral theologians and the Magisterium is required to get a sense of where the Spirit is leading.

I wonder why this bothers you so much?

-------

Suggested reading: http://www.innerexplorations.com/catchtheomor/is.htm

No, Phil, I don't think you have addressed my actual issues with all this. And I will have to strongly disagree with several of your assertions regarding the teaching on artificial contraception and revelation.

The church's teaching rejecting Artificial contraception as always sinful is as old as the church fathers. In fact, it is as old as the Od Testament, remember the sin of Onan? It is certainly based on divine revelation, both the scripture (the Old Testament) and Holy Tradition (the early church fathers).

Also, it has only been failed to be "accepted by the faithful" since the 1960s, but so what? The church's teaching on pre-marital sex is equally flouted today, but never in the preceding 2,000 years of christian history. Why would the testimony of these 80% for only the last 40 years influenced by a culture that rejects the lordship of Christ or God over human sexuality trump that of all the christian faithful of two millenia? That practice of dissenting from the church simply says a lot about the age we live in and the state of christian formation but it says nothing about the truthfulness of church teaching which has never depended for its truthfulness on the current rate of obedience at any given point of the church's history.

Neither is the distinction between NFP and AC murky, for one depends on the woman's own natural design (therefore God-ordained) body and does not seek to impose on it a false sterility be separating sex from its fruit of life, which, reading church fathers was always condemned in the strongest terms possible. The fathers had no problem with couples deliberately abstaining from sex within marriage, they mention such abstention severally, as does st. Paul himself in scripture, for prayer and other purposes. But that is all that's involved in NFP, abstention, and there is no divine rule imposing on married couples a duty to have sex constantly. The fathers had a major problem with couples using of chemicals or mechanical barriers to separate impose a separation between sex and procreation. Moreover, the unitive and procreative purposes are never separable as Pope Paul VI taught, they go together in one conjugal act. This separation is the definition of AC and is what is intrinsically sinful. There is no such separation in NFP. While they may abuse it, that would be a sin of selfishness, not contraception, it would be having the "contraceptive mentality", as it is often called, but not engaging in contraception.

Also, there has been no development on homosexuality. The tendency is deemed like all our tendencies to sin have always been deemed: Where they are involuntary we are not culpable. This is the same teaching of the church regarding all sins, not just homosexual sins. But to the extent that they involve acts of our own will, we are culpable. There 's no science that can modify the sinfulness of homosexual acts and make them something other than sin, for each act is more or less an act of the will, like all sexual acts, not merely a tendency.

I have no problem with the issue of annulments and I have not seen any debate about it among the bishops. That's the issue you're adressing but is not the "solution" proposed by Kasper et al. They are not looking at whether or not the first marriage was truly valid or not, they are not questioning whether our methods for discerning this truth could be better improved, less legalized. No one has problems with such discussions for they begin from the premis of truth, that if there exists a valid first sacramental marriage, there cannot be a second as long as the first spouse lives, for in obedience to our Lord's own divine decree, the second would be adulterous.

The problem with Kasper et al is that they want the church to act as though a valid sacramental marriage can indeed be dissolved simply by repenting of breaking it up. And then one is free to contract a second marriage. Thus denying our Lord's teaching that this marriage is indeed not dissolvable by any power on earth (what God has put together, let no man separate). This inability of the couple to dissolve the first marriage is why Jesus calls the second marriage adultery. For in God's eyes, the person would be entering into a sexual relationship with a person not his or her spouse, while being married to another.

The second thing their proposals indicate is that we accept that yes its adultery, but the church can say to the couple, it's ok, you can live in it even if it is adultery because you are sorry about ruining the first marriage (in church's eyes...the actual marriage). Hence, the church per Kasper has authority to permit people to sin! The other thing, is that repentance per Kasper does not mean you have to give up the sinful act. It just means you have to feel really bad about it. As long as you feel miserable, its ok, you can continue doing it. What is that?

My problem with Pope Francis is that his behaviour has sought to legitimize these notions, which are simply capitulations to our enemies, the flesh, the world, or worse, the devil, while we should be believing in Christ's grace to live according to his teaching, even if it is a "hard saying", as was complained in the New testament a few times!

Also, while I appreciate Mr. Arraj's view I cannot accept them. The catholic magisterium is the one endowed with infallibility, not theologians, and this matter on contraception, it has taught consistently through its ordinary magisterium for 2,000 years. That qualifies as infallible teaching, whatever individual theologians or even clerics may believe....it is what has been taught "always and everywhere as true" which is the infallibility of the church exercised through the ordinary magisterium. For me it is simple as that, the church has taught it always and it is true, for the church does not teach error. Not easy, for sure, but simple, yes.

Believe what you want, St. Rubia. At some point do some study as well.

Well, it seems obvious to me what you say Phil that there is a hierarchy of truths and moral obligations. Of course, it is much more important to contemplate Incarnation or the idea of redemption of sins than contraception or homosexuality. However, St. Paul's teaching on "natural law" issues is short and powerful in its adamant criticism. He doesn't mention contraception, but refers generally to sexual sins - he says those who commit them won't inherit the Kingdom. So it's not of little importance either.

I guess the main idea behind the Synod was to promote rather the beauty of the mystery of marriage rather than focus on condemning sinful practices. That's indeed necessary, to show people ideals, not only prohibitions, even though the Ten Commandments are and always be "You shall not". But Jesus balances this with his "You shall love...".

One more thing. You mention that the teaching on the contraception "was not accepted" by the Church. Well, I don't think the statistics are of any use here. With this number of Christians it's clear that most of them live not exactly as the Gospel says. Already St. Augustine lamented on the majority of the Church risking the eternal punishment due to their sinfulness. But the fact that people sin, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with accepting the doctrine. It's just that doctrine is a burden and a yoke, and only the minority can experience the burden as light and the yoke as easy.

I always find it interesting that in the Middle Ages it was so common to criticize the Popes or even accuse them of heresy. And sometimes the great saints or mystics were criticizing the Popes the most. But a couple of last Popes sort of made us think of the Vicar of Christ as someone spiritually deep and saintly. I hope they will be like that. But the history shows that they are just people and this is marvellous - they are not all wisdom, all sainthood. Their power comes from God who works against their weaknesses. I hope that weaknesses of Pope Francis are well handled by the Spirit I don't think that he's going to change anything - the doctrine transcends the Pope, he doesn't decide to change anything. But his way of communicating can enforce liberal theologians who, in my view, are detrimental to the Church, selling Christianity as some easy, smiling, open attitude to people. Jesus wasn't like that. Remember how his disciples were shocked when he said that "Moses allowed you to divorce, but I'm saying that marriage is forever"? They said: Well, then it's crazy to get married if you have to stay faithful to the grave... Interesting conversation.

quote:

St. Paul's teaching on "natural law" issues is short and powerful in its adamant criticism. He doesn't mention contraception, but refers generally to sexual sins - he says those who commit them won't inherit the Kingdom. So it's not of little importance either.

"Sexual sins" are of many kinds, and Paul seems most condemning of incest and adultery. There are condemnations of homosexuality as well by Paul and in other places in Scripture, not to mention the Catholic Catechism (which does not condemn the orientation). Additionally, the Synod did not advocate for changing teachings on homosexuality, incest and adultery. Those are all fairly settled matters in Catholicism and most of Christendeom, an exception being several Protestant traditions that are accepting of homosexuality.

There's so much misunderstanding and misinformation about infallibility. Some seem to think that God speaks to the Pope and Magisterium as though they are some kind of Oracle. God reveals things to them, and they pass it on, and that's how it works. But that is wrong! The Magisterium -- even the Pope -- cannot teach as true something that the Church (i.e., people of God) do not actually believe. E.g, the Pope could declare that Christ had a human, divine, and angelic nature, but such teaching would not be considered dogmatic because that's not what the Church actually believes. The charism of infallibility and Magisterial teaching works to clarify and settle disputed points, or to highlight and emphasize teachings like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which the Church already believed. So there's a sense in which Magisterial teaching is not so much about what the faithful should believe, but what we actually do believe. Such determinations do entail dialogue with theologians, knowledge of Scripture, church history, etc. Again . . . no Oracle!

quote:

One more thing. You mention that the teaching on the contraception "was not accepted" by the Church. Well, I don't think the statistics are of any use here. With this number of Christians it's clear that most of them live not exactly as the Gospel says.

I don't think the lack of acceptance of the teaching on birth control has much to do with the corruption of the people of God. People know and accept that they should not lie, cheat, kill, physically abuse, and, in the realm of sexuality, that they should be faithful to their commitments. Also, Christians are willing to make sacrifices where it's required. Contraceptive options such as we have today were not an issue for Paul, Augustine, and popes through the centuries. We're in a totally new situation, with biological and psychological understandings of human nature that have new moral and theological implications. At any rate, it seems the Synod did nothing to change the current teaching.

Mt., as you noted, it's fair game to criticize a Pope, his lifestyle, manner of teaching, etc. But it's not like Popes JP II, Benedict, or Even Paul VI were without critics from the other side of the aisle. People like Francis because it seems he "walks the walk" and is more in touch with the plight of the poor than his predecessors. His lifestyle is less regal, authoritarian, and more humble, or such is the perception. He resonates more with postmodern Christians, who are the majority of young people today. It will be interesting to see how his papacy continues to unfold.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

Phil, I love how you explained the Synod and your take on the Holy Father. I totally agree with your assessment that this papacy resonates with the postmodern Christians (being one myself). I am also very interested in seeing how things unfold under Pope Francis. His love for God and for neighbor are so transparent and inspiring.

I am making a pilgrimage with my local parish choir to Italy which will also include 3 days in Rome, singing at St. Peter in Chains on January 4th, and attending the Papal Mass on January 6th for the Feast of the Epiphany. I am just giddy.

Anyway, I haven't posted here in about a year, but just wanted to let you know I appreciate your perspective.

Thanks!
Andy

Thanks, Andy.

I hope your pilgrimage to Rome goes well. Drop in here and let us know all about it.

Peace, Phil