Catholic Thought discussion
Gathering Space
>
Current Events
In my video/blog I did not get into the weeds of what legal standard the Supreme Court followed. In Roe v Wade, the justices were reluctant to argue due process, although as Professor Baker argues, this is the most logical legal argument. My memory recalls that Roe v Wade was argued to be a right to privacy.Why were the justices reluctant to argue due process? Because the due process amendment suffered from eight decades of wrongly decided precedent, from roughly 1785, the end of Reconstruction, and 1965, when the modern Civil Rights legislation was passed. Perhaps their fear was that a future conservative court would resurrect these incorrectly decided precedents in overruling Roe v Wade. The history of the Reconstruction Amendments is here:
https://youtu.be/UciDV5laOLg
This history is why Roe v Wade is only tangentially related to the 14th due process amendment.
Manny wrote: "Bruce wrote: "Manny wrote: "Wow this is big! "Pelosi barred from Holy Communion over abortion advocacy" It appears to have happened today. From Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.:
“I must make a p..."
I am reading closely the sections of the Catholic Catechism dealing with abortion. Isn’t the Catholic Catechism the teachings of the Magisterium?
The footnotes in the Catholic Catechism reference the works of the early and medieval church fathers. Wouldn’t the works so referenced also be guaranteed to be in accord with the teachings of the Magisterium?
The issue of abortion is more complex than this:
Killing babies is evil,
Therefore, all women who give birth to babies are virtuous,
and all women who abort are evil.
Unfortunately, to argue against a carefully reasoned position, you need to first understand the carefully reasoned position.YouTube link: https://youtu.be/C4rH6qhhw70
https://www.slideshare.net/BruceStrom...
Slides 2-15:
Today we will learn and reflect on the morality and history of abortion.
Whether you are Catholic or not, the Catholic Catechism has carefully reasoned and well thought out positions on many issues confronting the modern believer, including abortion, and thus I believe that any Christian, Catholic or not, should be reluctant to take a moral position contrary to the Catechism.
Sometimes I get the impression that many who see themselves as devout Christians believe that if you choose to judge those single women who contemplate abortion, then that is virtue; but if to choose to show compassion for anyone considering this horrible decision, then that compassion is somehow contrary to Christian values.
Why do I say this? Because many of my Christian friends only want to see the short memes, if they come across a serious and longish article that even suggests that we should feel compassion towards any mother considering abortion for any reason, many want to jump to a knee-jerk conclusion the author must somehow be saying that it is OKAY TO KILL BABIES.
What any truly devout Christian Democrat should realize is they are not obligated to totally accept every position in the party platform, including abortion, because the Democratic Party is not a religion. But it is most certainly true that any Christian should evaluate what their position on important political and moral issues like abortion. This video is my personal attempt to ponder this important moral and medical issue, humbly and thoughtfully. My position has evolved as I have become better informed, and we pray you will seek to become better informed on this issue as well.
Many people have the impression that Christians should be passionate about their beliefs, that they need to SHOUT AND ATTACK those they see as their spiritual enemies on the various internet forums. They do not want to admit that their adversaries are real, live, emotional, breathing human beings that deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, they see everybody else as a tar baby that needs to be set alight and ablaze.
What is so dangerous about internet memes, those dozen word exhortations of what you think is truth? Internet memes ignore the undeniable fact that life can be complicated and messy, that often in real-life situations what is right and what is wrong can be difficult to discern.
You show no respect when you judgmentally shout at someone who is forced to make a really difficult life decision, whether it is a difficult pregnancy, divorce, whether to place parents with dementia in a nursing home, they do not need your shouts, they need you to listen and show compassion. Compassion is what shows the world that we are truly Christians. Demonizing ladies with problem pregnancies does not help.
There are some really heart-breaking situations involving abortion. Should abortion be allowed if the mother’s and/or the baby’s life is in danger? Should abortion be allowed in case of rape or incest? Should abortion be permitted if it is likely the mother would otherwise commit suicide? Should abortion be permitted to reduce the number of deaths caused by botched abortions by coat hangers or Lysol?
PONDERING THE MORAL POSITION REGARDING ABORTION
This video is part of our series on the Ten Commandments, using as sources the Catholic and Lutheran Catechisms, Eastern and Western Church Fathers, rabbinic commentators, preachers, scholars, stoic philosophers, and any other interesting credible sources.
SUMMARY OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS
• I agree 100% (one hundred percent) with the Catholic teachings on abortion in the catechism.
• The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, not pro-choice. I am uncomfortable with a radical, in all cases, pro-choice position, but as a Christian I am always PRO-COMPASSION, compassionate towards the unborn, the born, the mother, the doctors, the poor, the sick, the family, and towards low-income workers.
• Pro-life concerns DO NOT end at birth, pro-life concerns are from cradle to grave,
not just from conception to birth
• Our Christian two-fold love of God and neighbor means we must be compassionate towards those who face difficult decisions in their lives, even if we feel that they are considering immoral actions.
• Abortion is always a personal moral decision. If the government permits mothers with their doctors to make this decision when the mothers and/or children’s life is in danger, this does not mean that the government seeks to kill babies.
Mod
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. (Didache 2, 2:SCh 248, 148;cf. Ep.Barnabae 19, 5:pg 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: pg 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320
God the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (GS 51.3)
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sentinae,” (CIC, can 1398) “by the very commission of the offense” (CIC, can 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. (Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324)
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard, every human beings right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.” (CDF, Dominum Vitae III)
Paragraphs 2273-5 are also pertinent but you can read that on your own.
As you can see, the Catholic Church's position on abortion is "excommunication." It even quotes from the Didache that I quoted above earlier. It cannot be clearer than that. Period. I said your mistake is that you pick and choose from the Church Fathers, but the Church Fathers are not the Magisterial Teaching of the Catholic Church. They can and do disagree on any number of issues. n fact Thomas Aquinas did not support the concept of the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Church is the sole determiner of Catholic teaching. What you are doing is cheery picking from the Church Fathers to fit your position.
At one time we did not allow controversial subjects here. I opened the door with a caution of not allowing it to escalate. I don't want to shut that door back. Now, you have made your case. You have had your say. This is not a debating forum. Let it go.
Mod
That is uncalled for.
This is not a lecture hall. This is not a university. This is not forum for debate. This is not Facebook or Twitter or whatever other medium where supercilious people talk down to others. If people want to go you your YouTube and be insulted, that is their prerogative. But do not talk in that manner to any of our book club members. No one here has signed up to be instructed by you.
This is a book club, where people bring their thoughts to a book discussion. If you don't understand the nature of a book club, then you don't belong here. I will not have anyone spoken to in that manner. You owe Frances an apology. Please apologize or leave.
Manny, Bruce doesn't need to apologize to me. Thanks so much for the considerate thought, however. It's so like you.Bruce, thank you for the time and mental effort you have dedicated to the subject of abortion. In the ancient world, unwanted infants --especially females -- were taken out and left in the hills to die. Christianity changed all that. That is one of its precious gifts to mankind. I sincerely believe that today's regard for the unborn child continues the Christian tradition of reverence for life.
Let's see how the Supreme Court rules on the issue. If I understand you correctly, it's not just the 10th Amendment we should be looking at, but the 13th, 14th and 15th as well. Probably the Court decision on abortion -- involving these complexities -- will be studied for years.
Finally, love for one another -- compassion -- is a Christian virtue. I don't see it as part of the abortion issue. It's the mark which distinguishes Jesus's followers. He told us this.
I have to say I think the Eucharist should never be weaponized or turned into a political tool. All that does is prevent a person from feeling the power of Christ at a time when they likely need it most. I couldn't help but think that Cordileone will reap a huge chunk of public praise and adulation from this. But of course that wouldn't happen if he made his ruling in private and shared it only with Pelosi. Bruce, thank you for posting your links; I'll explore them. As for abortion, I think there are rare occasions when it is morally permissable (mother will die otherwise; 10-year-old victim of rape/incest, ditto on tbe dying...) and that those decisions don't belong in the hands of any government.
It chills me to see women calling for abortion in any or all circumstances and/or up until birth. Do they really realize what they're saying? My great niece was just born yesterday (a beauty!). Her 3-D sonogram at 14 weeks showed a beautifully formed baby face. Such things should be enough to convince anyone about life. Sadly, they're not.
Gerri, regarding your first paragraph: in principle, I agree with you; in practice, I find the way thornier. I have several friends who aren’t Catholic and in different ways have asked the same question: Why don’t Catholic Church leaders say anything about the behavior of x, y and z? I’ve heard, “Isn’t the issue really that important?’’ “Are they afraid of being called political?” ‘’Do Catholics have a range of positions on abortion, like the rest of Americans?’’ The latter reason seems to be taking hold in the public consciousness. That is very sad.
Gerri, does this make a difference?‘’Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced his decision in an open letter to Catholics in which he said he had acted only ‘after numerous attempts to speak with Mrs. Pelosi to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking. . .’ ‘’
(WSJ, Saturday/Sunday, May 21-22, 2022, A5)
Manny wrote: "Bruce, this is not a debating forum. I'm going to quote exactly what the CCC says:2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment o..."
Manny, I quote the Catholic Catechism directly in my study.
I believe that when a Catholic celebrity or politician or other position of leadership publicly announces or manifests or defends or advocates a grave sin the Church should defend its position. Pelosi has publicly called abortion a "sacrament" among other public statements, which emboldens and validates the sin in defiance of God's Word. We have priests who are bad shepherds and who publicly promote or practice sin, and they should be called out and removed from their positions, What bothers me is that people use these publicly sinful people as an excuse for leaving or denouncing the faith, assuming that their sin is supported by the Church. I have known women who have had abortions and whose pain is still raw and visible. One of my close friends has been a leader in Project Rachel, giving healing retreats in her diocese sometimes with little support from the clergy, Hers is a ministry of consolation and deep compassion, and a reminder that mortal sin isn't just between sinner and God, but works against the Church and the Body of Christ. "No man is an island," and all that. We should be united in frontline defense of Church teachings, wearing the armor of God and supporting the right to life from the moment of conception, with prayers and spreading God's Word and performing works of mercy, countering the lies and shouting with truth and love.
Frances and Madeleine, I believe it all matters. Future generations will respect the stand the Catholic Church takes today. Of that, I am convinced. But am I correct in thinking the Church steps back from judgment in those rare cases of impending death to the mother? And they are extremely rare, those cases. Those decisions shouldn't decided by government. And they likely weren't before Roe, if you think about it. On a side note, I feel some of our church leaders are too much in the thrall of power these days - on either side of today's extremist worlds. Why didn't Archbishop Cordileone continue his conversations with Pelosi privately? An open letter to Catholics? Really, is it our business? (However, I am very shocked to learn Pelosi called abortion a sacrament. Dear God, pray for her.) His very public action has inflamed an already violent situation. The Church's stance is well known. And even our Holy Father says the Eucharist is not a weapon. I feel very strongly about that.
I've only known one person who had an abortion, and that was more than 30 years ago. She had it done during a workday and returned to the office afterward. I could see pain and anguish on her face. She wouldn't say anything about the experience, even though she had been very talkative about having an abortion beforehand. I was young at the time, lapsed in my faith, and in the "prochoice" camp for rare situations. Thankfully, I'm older and wiser now. I lost touch with that woman but I know she went on to have more children. I wonder where she stands on the issue today.
I know life begins at conception. I felt it in my two failed pregnancies. The first miscarriage occurred shortly after I realized I might be pregnant (this was long before drugstore tests). The sense of loss was huge. The second pregnancy was after years of infertility and I swear I know the very day I conceived. I could feel it. I don't think the zygote ever made it to embryo stage, as we discovered at my 3-month sonogram. That miscarriage caused me to hemorrhage and I was rushed to the ER. I almost had a nervous breakdown over that loss. I know the anguish of miscarriage and can't imagine the anguish of abortion, which has to be even worse.
So why did I go off on that tangent? Don't know. I guess to reiterate how complicated and yes, thorny, life is. I pray for the misguided protesters and their targets, and gnash my teeth over the big money behind Planned Parenthood and their supporters - money that could help pregnant women and mothers in need and places like my parish's Visitation House. Most of all I pray for the poor aborted babies and for their mothers.
Gerri wrote: " am I correct in thinking the Church steps back from judgment in those rare cases of impending death to the mother?"I hope so now, but when I was in elementary school (maybe 5th grade) the mother of one of my classmates was pregnant when she was diagnosed with cancer, and our pastor told her abortion was forbidden. The whole family then left the Church and I never saw my classmate again. This was in the mid 1950s.
Twenty years later, I contracted cancer and had to have a hysterectomy. My children were still in elementary school. A friend of ours who had the same doctor (our last children were born same day, same hospital) and like us, had hoped for more
children, and my two miscarriages were later blamed on the cancer, but my friend had decided to wait while she tried to get pregnant again ,and her cancer progressed until she had to give up. I remember the night before my surgery I was given a rabbit test (most people born since 1960 don't know what that was) to be sure I wasn't pg. Catholic doctor, hospital, and our pastor visited to administer the sacraments. And I have read stories about young mothers in similar situations who gave up their lives to let their babies live. A hard decision.
One more instance: we are godparents to our niece, who had two miscarriages before she was able to carry her baby to term only to have her ob/gyn recommend an abortion because the baby "might" have the Downs Syndrome gene. She and her husband said no way. I was so proud of her, and God favored them with a perfect little girl, now middle-school age and sharp as a tack.
My heart breaks for anyone who would have taken her doctor's advice. I have known and worked with Down's children, and love every one of them dearly--they have a quirky sense of humor and have much to teach us about unconditional love. Their parents--at least the ones I know--discover that and feel blessed to have them. My grandniece, I already knew, was going to be named after me, and I would have been no less proud had she been born with Downs. Same with her parents. I understand that in our wicked world 90-95% of parents had, on the advice of their doctors, aborted. Have to wonder how many of their doctors were wrong! Nor would they know what amazing things so many of these children can accomplish and live near-normal lives.
That's my tangent, and I hope it puts things in perspective. I think the Church hasn't backed down, but enough clergy are catering to the cafeteria Catholics and turning a blind eye. On the plus side, many parishes now have a ministry to counsel and support mothers who have aborted or miscarried or had a baby die in infancy, and ours has a beautiful annual Mass of Remembrance for them. Also Amazon has a lovely book titled Honoring Our Babies Born to Heaven. Gerri, if you haven't read it, do.
Oh, Madeleine, thanks, I will definitely read that book. And my heart breaks, like yours, at the thought of how many women have taken a doctor's advice to abort. My next-door neighbor was told the baby she was carrying had Down's and that she should abort. She is an evangelical fundamentalist and she refused the advice. Her son was born healthy as can be and has grown into a nice young man. I understand what you mean about people with Down's. My cousin's son is the sweetest man. That part of the family lives half a continent away so I haven't seen them in years. But his joy and happiness come through in the Facebook posts my cousin frequently shares with family. We could all learn from the love they share and their outlook on life.
I am so sorry for what you and your friend went through. Yes, life is hard, as my father was so fond of reminding his children. My Pollyanna perspective keeps popping up even now, which is likely why I'm sorrowful about the discord all around us in (it seems) every part of life. However, I did have to laugh at your comment about knowing about the rabbit test. It's probably the same with my Pollyanna reference...
Gerri, when you have time, Google:The Catholic Thing Website. When it comes up, go to the first item, titled simply “The Catholic Thing.” Click on and today’s column, “Lionheart,’’ will come up. Written by the publisher and Catholic intellectual Robert Royal, this piece details the efforts made by Archbishop Cordileone to communicate with Nancy Pelosi and how he has tried to act for pastoral, not political, reasons.
Additionally, in today’s WSJ, J.D. Flynn, editor of Pillar Catholic, relates how often the Archbishop has tried to reach out to Mrs. Pelosi and how eventually she stopped taking his calls.
I think we agree that in Madeleine Meyers Catholic Thought has a jewel.
Thanks, Frances, I'll check them out. Yes, Madeleine is a jewel. Catholic Thought overall is a special place. I'm glad we can all have civil discussions here. So unlike the norm in society today.
Thank you, Frances and Gerri. I will try to live up to that!
Mod
And we want to keep it that way :-)
I subscribe to a Catholic online page, The Imaginative Conservative. Today a striking article and sonnet written by Malcolm Guide (a poet I wasn't familiar with) about the Ascension. Worth the read. Looking him up, I found his blog and another sonnet on Pentecost among others. Imaginative Conservative also has a Facebook page.
Oops, it's Guite, not Guide. Darn autocorrect.
Mod
Here is the link. There's also an embedded audio of the poet reading the poem.
https://theimaginativeconservative.or...
Mod
I put together a blog post, if you're interested.
https://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot....
God bless,
Yes! Praise Jesus. Now the real work begins to welcome every life from conception to natural death as a society.
Mod
Mod
https://instituteofcatholicculture.or...
Mod
It just dawned on me. What a remarkable confluence of events. Not only was June 24, 2022 the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, not only was it the Feast Day of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, from whence all compassions comes from, not only was it the birthday of St. John the Baptist, who leaped in the womb, it was the day of peak alignment of the planets. From Space.com:
https://www.space.com/rare-five-plane...
"The rare sight of five bright planets lining up with the moon wowed skywatchers around the world Friday, with some gearing up for more this weekend to see a planetary sight that won't happen again until 2040.
Throughout June, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn have lined up from left to right, in their orbital order from the sun, before dawn in the southeastern sky. Early Friday (June 24), the moon joined the planet parade in an awesome sight captured by astrophotographer Wright Dobbs, a meteorologist for the U.S. National Weather Service in Tallahassee, Florida."
Dobbs? Does it say his name is Dobbs? Oh my! When I noticed all this coming together and realized it was no coincidence, I literally got goosepimples
Heavenly Father, I am humbled before Your majesty. Guide us to peace.
Peej! Spot on. It's heartbreaking that our country has leaders and even self-professed Christians not just allowing but actively advocating the brutal murder of babies even after birth or after surviving a botched abortion. It's heartless and cruel at best. At worst it's sacrificing God's best creation and most precious gift to appease the demons, a bad bargain in every age.
And Manny, yes how amazing! I believe there are no coincidences in God's Kingdom.
The fact is we need to go through a period of repentance. Our society doesn’t welcome children as it should. All of our institutions are built upon 50 years of abortion policies. It is also interesting that this happened during a baby formula crisis in our nation.
Now that this has happened, we must take care of and love both mother and child and identity why so many take such a drastic, tragic, and sinful option in the first place.
The fact is we need to go through a period of repentance. Our society doesn’t welcome children as it should. All of our institutions are built upon 50 years of abortion policies. It is also interesting that this happened during a baby formula crisis in our nation.
Now that this has happened, we must take care of and love both mother and child and identity why so many take such a drastic, tragic, and sinful option in the first place.
Part of what I mean. From Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight: To that end, the Supreme Council has announced a $5 million campaign to support new mothers and their children through a new program: ASAP (Aid and Support After Pregnancy). These pregnancy centers and maternity homes are now the front lines of the pro-life movement, and Knights should continue to stand and serve with them.
Absolutely. Our deacon's homily at this evening's Vigil Mass made a point of saying we all have to step up and support the women who otherwise would have opted for abortion. I'm glad to hear about the KofC program and hope it's the first of many from a wide range of people and organizations. I know I'll be doing more to support my parish's Visitation House.
I have donated recently to a local pregnancy center and praying for their safety lately. Our parish is having a police presence this weekend and I've suggested they do as well, and use armed volunteers on their site, as they are worried. How sad that our demonic culture has decided to defend their barbaric evil and violence with more barbaric evil and violence.
Madeleine wrote: "I have donated recently to a local pregnancy center and praying for their safety lately. Our parish is having a police presence this weekend and I've suggested they do as well, and use armed volunt..."You're so right. It truly is sad.
I respectfully suggest reading “Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi” of Pope Francis addressed to the “Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to consecrated men and women and to the lay faithful on the liturgical formation of the people God.” (29 June 2022.) I was interested in what the Holy Father says about the reception of communion. Point#5 of the letter has “The world still does not know it, but everyone is invited to the supper of the wedding of the Lamb (Re 19:9). To be admitted to the feast all that is required is the wedding garment of faith which comes from the hearing of his Word (cf. Ro 10:17).”
My reading of this letter tells me that that the only requirement for a Catholic to receive the Most Holy Body and Blood of the Lord is having the virtue of faith. There is silence in the Apostolic Letter about the key condition for receiving Holy Communion, which is penance.
The Council of Trent (1545 and 1563) condemned this as heresy: "If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation to receive the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be accursed." [Si quis dixerit, solam fidem esse sufficientem praeparationem ad sumendum sanctissimum eucharistiae sacramentum, anathema sit.].
Mod
Not only does that statement imply you don't need the sacrament of confession, it would imply that a believing Protestant can take communion, which he can't. Pertinent to the discussion is the quote from St. Paul (1 Cor 11:26-29) about receiving unworthily. I'm going to hold off judgement until I read the letter to get the entire context. It could be that it was implied that the recipient was in good standing.
Thank you, Galicius, for your honest comments. I noticed you’re implying, based on a sentence in one of this apostolic letter, that Pope Francis is promoting heresy. We should look at the entire document and interpret such paragraphs as #5 in light of the whole.
In regards to the “wedding garment”, I’ve always understood this to mean both faith and good works aided by grace. Indeed, that’s how St. Augustine interprets the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew. The wedding garment only comes with baptism, which Francis addresses in Paragraphs 12 and 13. The Church further always teaches that reconciliation cleanses our wedding garments.
Also, since the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis has condemned two modern heresies of the time, one of which relates to sole fidei: neo-Gnosticism and Neo-Pelagianism. Indeed, in paragraph 20, he addresses how the liturgy provides the antidote to the poison of this spiritual worldliness and heresy:
“Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice is not our own achievement, as if because of it we could boast before God or before our brothers and sisters. The beginning of every celebration reminds me who I am, asking me to confess my sin and inviting me to implore the Blessed Mary ever virgin, the angels and saints and all my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God. Certainly, we are not worthy to enter his house; we need a word of his to be saved. (cf. Ma 8:8) We have no other boast but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (cf. Gal 6:14) The Liturgy has nothing to do with an ascetical moralism. It is the gift of the Paschal Mysteryof the Lord which, received with docility, makes our life new. The cenacle is not entered except through the power of attraction of his desire to eat the Passover with us: Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antequam patiar (Lk 22:15).” (Paragraph 20)
Pope Francis isn’t promoting sole fidei here. He reminds us that all are invited to Christ’s Body and the wedding feast of the Lamb, which is only a gift of grace requiring “me to confess my sin” and implore all to pray for me to the Lord our God (#20). We ultimately confess our sins because of our love of Jesus Christ.
Eloquently said, Peej. Thank you. I loved this.
Peej wrote: "Thank you, Galicius, for your honest comments. I noticed you’re implying, based on a sentence in one of this apostolic letter, that Pope Francis is promoting heresy. We should look at the entire ..."
With due respect to your reading there is more to this case.
An appeal was sent to Pope Francis signed, among others, by Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, Bishop Emeritus René Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, Robert Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of the diocece S'Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana (Kazakhstan). Among the clergy, support for the letter was expressed, among others by Fr. Cor Mennen, retired seminary lecturer, Fr. Gerald E. Murray from New York, and French abbot Fr. Guy Pagès.
The signatories of the letter appeal to Pope Francis:
“In the context of a potential error publicly taught by the Pope ... no Catholic can believe or act on a papal judgment if it is contrary to the divine revelation of the Catholic faith. We encourage all bishops and clergy to publicly profess the Catholic doctrine on the worthy reception of the Eucharist and to enforce the related canons in order to avoid eternal condemnation and public scandal."
Promoted by the Pope, the statement that the Eucharist is not the prize of the saints, but the bread of sinners, according to the signatories, can be understood in the orthodox sense, if viewed in isolation. "However, placed in the context of the reception of the Eucharist by Judas (John 13: 23-27) and in the context of other words and deeds of Pope Francis, it suggests that renunciation of sin is not necessary for receiving Communion to be pleasing to God," we read in the letter.
The authors point to giving Holy Communion as one of the examples of such action: radically pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi, during the papal Holy Mass celebrated in the Vatican (June 2022) although previously, on the basis of Canon 911, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, her diocesan shepherd, forbade to administer to her the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord,
This is tangental to the main conversation here. But the larger conversation made me wonder, again, at Archbishop Cordileone's apparent willingness to continue administering the Holy Eucharist to those in his diocese who support the death penalty.
Mod
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/...
Peej, the quote you bring up from paragraph 20 ("“Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice is not our own achievement, as if because of it we could boast before God or before our brothers and sisters. The beginning of every celebration reminds me who I am, asking me to confess my sin and inviting me to implore the Blessed Mary ever virgin, the angels and saints and all my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God....") that is not referring to the sacrament of confession but to the Confiteor prayed at the beginning of Mass. That only addresses venial sins, not mortal sins.
However, I find it impossible to believe Pope Francis meant to say that we can take the Eucharist in mortal sin. If he intended to change Church doctrine (which he can't anyway), it would not come from an Apostolic Letter on the liturgy. Charity to Pope Francis is called for here. If we can't be charitable to the Pope, who can we be charitable.
Mod
Gerri, while the Church strongly supports doing away with the death penalty, I do not believe it has been raised to a doctrine or dogma. I think it still falls under a prudential judgement of the individual. So Cordeleone could not deny anyone communion because of their position on it. I don't think I've heard of any bishop or priest doing so. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Pope Francis attended Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, International this month and signed a declaration part of which (Item 19) I am quoting below:“Declaration Of VII Congress Of the Leaders Of World And Traditional Religions in CONGRESS OF LEADERS OF WORLD AND TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS, INTERNATIONAL on 15 SEPTEMBER 2022
19. We proceed from the immutable fact that the Almighty created all people equal, regardless of their racial, religious, ethnic or other affiliation or social status, therefore respect for each other and mutual understanding underpin all religious teaching.”
I am puzzled and concerned because this appears to me rather clearly that Pope Francis by signing his name to this document agreed that all religions are equal. I want to be charitable to Pope Francis. If I am misinterpreting this point please correct me but as I see it I ask myself What is happening to our one true religion founded by Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church of which he is the successor of Apostle Peter?
Where in that statement do you see that all religions are equal? It only says that all people were created equal and that religions should respect each otherThere have been many people spreading confusion about the pope. I suggest that you read more about the pope’s actual words (and the previous popes as well) and less about websites that purport to interpret Catholicism while consistently criticizing the Vicar of Christ
Mod
“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”
That was clearly in error. God does not will the diversity of religions. A number of bishops and theologians objected in a formal letter, and Pope Francis - against his wishes I think, retracted that statement. You can read about it here:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/a-supe...
Though in this most recent statement, the phrasing is similar, so I think the inclination is to refer back to that earlier error. But this statement is not in error. God did create all people equal. That is a very Catholic notion, going back to Gospels where Christ is gracious to the Samaritans and St. Paul gives equal deference to the gentiles.
Now Pope Francis is a very sloppy thinker, a poor communicator, and has liberal biases. He does get overly criticized, but he personally has brought that criticism upon himself.
Manny wrote: "What I think is being confused here is this statement in Kazakhstan with the statement Pope Francis signed in Abu Dhabi in February 2019. In that statement Pope Francis signed onto:“The pluralism..."
Thank you Manny for your explanation and for the article.
That was a verbafim quote from the Declaration signed between Pope Francis and the imam of Al-Azhar, which remains valid. There is nothing wrong or heretical with what he said. Pope Francis clarified twice (once to Bp. Schneider, who then relayed it to LifeSiteNews, and another in an audience) that he meant that God wills a pluralism and diversity of religions as in his “permissive will”, which must be distinguished from his “active will”. This interpretation of the declaration was first proposed by Chad Pecknold, a respected theologian with no liberal leaningPope Francis is a brilliant thinker, so it’s a shame he’s so misunderstood. The criticisms he receives are perfectly unwarranted and uncharitable, and they stem from the fact that many commentators who have a hold on Catholic media nowadays have conservative biases that make them dislike the pope.
Again, I suggest that people read Pope Francis directly from the source and not through the interpretation given by websites that are critical of the pope, no matter how prominent
Maybe we should do more group reads of works written by Our Holy Father. I continue to be disturbed at the hatred directed toward him by so many. To me, the act of considering the Pope heretical should be considered the heresy. We could learn more from the source than from dissenters and schismatic groups that seem to be prodded by the Devil and people who'd love to see Catholicism crumble. Lucifer laughs when Catholics slam the Pope for being merciful.
Mod
You are right in that the language was never changed. I misremembered that. But I was correct when Pope Francis rhetorically followed the letter of correction with a clarifying statement that he was referring to “the permissive will of God,” not the positive will. Why is this important? Because God positively willing multiple religions not only contradicts Church teaching but it contradicts the Gospel itself, from which Church teaching was based on. From Christ’s sermon in John Chapter 6.
“Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.” (John 6:37-40)
Notice how many times Christ uses the word “will.” And conclusively in that last sentence, “the will of the Father is that everyone comes to the Son.” Not that He wills a diversity of religions. That would be a contradiction. A positive will is teleological, that is, an end goal. If He positively wills a diversity of religions, then His end goal is diversity, and that is in contradiction to John 6:40. Kudos to Pope Francis for clarifying his language to permissive will.
This is an example of Pope Francis’s sloppy thinking and poor communication. The reason, as I see it, why Pope Francis continually falls into controversy is that he is so politically minded. He prioritizes the politics of the day over defending the magisterium, which should be his main priority. And so he strives for ecumenicalism and falters with the theological implications of his language. He becomes obsessed with climate change that he then refuses to acknowledge man has dominion over the earth. He wants good relations with China that he then abandons Cardinal Joseph Zen to their dictatorial goals. Disgracefully I might add in the way he has abandoned Cardinal Zen. These may all be admirable goals, but they are not the primary function of the papacy.
Pope Francis seems to have an approached his pontificate in much the same way an elected head of a country approaches his office: what are the goals to accomplish and how do I do it. This may be all fine for an elected official, but it brings the Pope into political controversy. It seems like his approach is political objectives in search of theological backing, rather than maintaining theological principles. At least that’s what it feels like, and that’s why he gets so much criticism on the internet. He’s become a politician and politicians wind up being in the mud of politics. It’s not accident that Dante put the most political popes in hell in his Divine Comedy. Sure, if you agree with Pope Francis’ politics, you’re going to overlook the sloppy thinking and poor communications and consider him great. Sure, if you are against his politics you will become rabid in the way political parties become rabid. He’s brought it all on himself.
And this effects his true role as a Holy Father. He may have a very good argument for diminishing the Latin Mass, one which I kind of share, but because he has created this political antagonism he gets incredible resistance and rebuttal in a very hyper way. People have girded their britches against him and anything he says will be met with hyper opposition. Again he brought this on himself.
I have heard of Chad Pecknold, but I have not read him. I don’t know anything about him. There are thousands of theologians in universities across the world all striving to create novums and make a name for themselves. It doesn’t matter to me whether Pecknold supports Pope Francis, and was he supporting the permissive will or positive will statement? I don’t have the time to figure it out. The 20th century and now the 21st century has had a terrible development in theology, that is where every theologian needs to create a novum in order to be considered a theologian of great standing. I am using the word novum in its Latin sense. Martin Luther created a novum with justification with faith alone. He created a novum with sola scriptura. Theologians creating novums has been more the rule than not in the last hundred years. The greatest theologian of the 20th century and into the 21st is in my humble opinion, should be Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI. Never that I have ever seen did Ratzinger create novums but he found new insights into traditional magisterial doctrine. Pope Benedict XVI was criticized for not being in touch with the politics. That should not have been a criticism. That should have been lauded.
Catholic Thought
Books mentioned in this topic
Leisure: The Basis of Culture (other topics)Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race (other topics)
Statement #1
Bruce, I may be mistaken about one aspect of Roe v Wade and, if so, I hope you can clarify it for me. It's my understanding that Roe is not a carefully thought-out opinion for this reason:
Query #1
Any issue that is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution goes to the states to be resolved by the voters.
Statement #2
This is what would happen now if Roe is overturned by the Supreme Court, and what should have happened in the early 1970s.
Query #2
Isn't this correct?
Answering Query #1:
Technically, that is not correct, the three Reconstruction Amendments state that the federal government can intervene to guarantee due process of law, citizenship, and universal suffrage to all citizens, including blacks, whether or not the state governments consent.
And I would like to add, whether or not the state electorates consent.
https://youtu.be/UciDV5laOLg
So I am NOT representing, in this answer, that abortion itself and due process is related.
Query #2, I did not answer.