-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope Francis endorses claim that US Christians are engaged in ‘ecumenism of hatred’
- Thread starter Vouthon
- Start date
The Holy Father went further in a different interview:
Pope on right-wing critics: It's 'an honor if the Americans attack me' | The Japan Times
Pope on right-wing critics: It's 'an honor if the Americans attack me' | The Japan Times
ABOARD, THE PAPAL PLANE – Pope Francis acknowledged his growing opposition within the conservative right-wing of the U.S. Catholic Church and said in off-hand remarks aboard the papal plane Wednesday it is “an honor if the Americans attack me.”
Francis commented on critics of his papacy when he received a copy of a new book about his detractors in the United States, “How America Wants to Change the Pope.” Author Nicholas Seneze, who covers the Vatican for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, presented it to Francis on a flight to southern Africa.
The plane landed in Maputo late in the afternoon. Francis is on a trip this that also takes him to Madagascar and Mauritius.
In his book, Seneze charts the fierce criticism of Francis among American conservatives who loathe his outreach to migrants and China, his denunciation of free-market capitalism, his environmental concerns and his relaxation of church rules on the death penalty and sacraments for civilly remarried Catholics. Some have gone so far as to accuse Francis of heresy.
The pope’s most outspoken conservative critics in the U.S. include Cardinal Raymond Burke, who Francis ousted as a Vatican supreme court justice, and former White House adviser Steve Bannon. Well-funded, right-wing Catholic media amplified their disapproval. Wealthy Catholics are putting money behind initiatives to discredit Francis’ allies with the goal of electing a conservative, doctrine-minded churchman as the next pope.
In presenting the book to Francis, Seneze explained that he had wanted to show Francis’ problems with the U.S. church and how Francis had responded with “spiritual weapons.”
“For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me,” Francis quipped. As he handed the book to an aide, the pope added “This is a bombshell.”
Francis commented on critics of his papacy when he received a copy of a new book about his detractors in the United States, “How America Wants to Change the Pope.” Author Nicholas Seneze, who covers the Vatican for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, presented it to Francis on a flight to southern Africa.
The plane landed in Maputo late in the afternoon. Francis is on a trip this that also takes him to Madagascar and Mauritius.
In his book, Seneze charts the fierce criticism of Francis among American conservatives who loathe his outreach to migrants and China, his denunciation of free-market capitalism, his environmental concerns and his relaxation of church rules on the death penalty and sacraments for civilly remarried Catholics. Some have gone so far as to accuse Francis of heresy.
The pope’s most outspoken conservative critics in the U.S. include Cardinal Raymond Burke, who Francis ousted as a Vatican supreme court justice, and former White House adviser Steve Bannon. Well-funded, right-wing Catholic media amplified their disapproval. Wealthy Catholics are putting money behind initiatives to discredit Francis’ allies with the goal of electing a conservative, doctrine-minded churchman as the next pope.
In presenting the book to Francis, Seneze explained that he had wanted to show Francis’ problems with the U.S. church and how Francis had responded with “spiritual weapons.”
“For me, it’s an honor if the Americans attack me,” Francis quipped. As he handed the book to an aide, the pope added “This is a bombshell.”
One of the bones of contention (among many other factors, like his environmentalism, leniency for divorcees and others out of 'mercy', strident criticisms of capitalism and trickle-down economics etc. etc., belief that the church has emphasised sexual doctrine far too much & should have a greater focus on our social doctrine and his condemnation of "clericalism") from U.S. conservatives is that Pope Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to declare the death penalty a violation of human dignity, that could never be accepted under any circumstances:
Pope Francis changes Catechism to say death penalty ‘inadmissible’ | Catholic Herald
In doing so, he had actually been 'reviving' what had been the Church's original position in the first millennium, as can be seen from this 866 A.D. letter from Pope Nicholas I against the death penalty:
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm 2
Prior to him, so had Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) when he stated: “Since I fear God, I shrink from having anything whatsoever to do with the death of anyone”.
But for "conservative" U.S. Catholics, this development of doctrine by Pope Francis was perceived as an 'assault' on the tradition of the church and its increasing permissiveness of the state in executing criminals from the high middle ages onwards. So they wrote an appeal to cardinals for them to 'resist' the pontiff:
An Appeal to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church | Various
Bit by bit, the pope is successfully chipping away at the ideological formation and presuppositions that far-right/conservative Catholics in the U.S. rely upon to justify their "ecumenism of hatred" (as the pope terms it) with U.S. Evangelicals, in their unholy alliance that has lasted since the 1970s and comprises the shocktroops of the "religious right" in America.
As when he said this, early on in his pontificate: calling for a "new balance" in the church's public message that was not so uniquely (as it appears) 'obsessed' with sexual matters to the detriment of the rest of church doctrine:
Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control
Then, we had his 2015 encyclical on climate change which directly rebuked its deniers and those who failed to prioritize it amongst the Catholic community (again, especially - perhaps uniquely - in America):
Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis
Pope Francis changes Catechism to say death penalty ‘inadmissible’ | Catholic Herald
Pope Francis has changed the Catechism to say the death penalty is “inadmissible”, sparking a debate over the meaning of the word in the context of Church teaching.
The Vatican announced the change to Canon 2267 on Thursday. The text now reads:
The Vatican announced the change to Canon 2267 on Thursday. The text now reads:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
In doing so, he had actually been 'reviving' what had been the Church's original position in the first millennium, as can be seen from this 866 A.D. letter from Pope Nicholas I against the death penalty:
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm 2
Chapter XXV.
You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice.
Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15]
In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction. [Prov. 24:11]_
You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice.
Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15]
In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction. [Prov. 24:11]_
Prior to him, so had Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) when he stated: “Since I fear God, I shrink from having anything whatsoever to do with the death of anyone”.
But for "conservative" U.S. Catholics, this development of doctrine by Pope Francis was perceived as an 'assault' on the tradition of the church and its increasing permissiveness of the state in executing criminals from the high middle ages onwards. So they wrote an appeal to cardinals for them to 'resist' the pontiff:
An Appeal to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church | Various
Since it is a truth contained in the Word of God, and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, that criminals may lawfully be put to death by the civil power when this is necessary to preserve just order in civil society, and since the present Roman pontiff has now more than once publicly manifested his refusal to teach this doctrine, and has rather brought great confusion upon the Church by seeming to contradict it, and by inserting into the Catechism of the Catholic Church a paragraph which will cause and is already causing many people, both believers and non-believers, to suppose that the Church considers, contrary to the Word of God, that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, we call upon Your Eminences to advise His Holiness that it is his duty to put an end to this scandal, to withdraw this paragraph from the Catechism, and to teach the word of God unadulterated; and we state our conviction that this is a duty seriously binding upon yourselves, before God and before the Church.
Bit by bit, the pope is successfully chipping away at the ideological formation and presuppositions that far-right/conservative Catholics in the U.S. rely upon to justify their "ecumenism of hatred" (as the pope terms it) with U.S. Evangelicals, in their unholy alliance that has lasted since the 1970s and comprises the shocktroops of the "religious right" in America.
As when he said this, early on in his pontificate: calling for a "new balance" in the church's public message that was not so uniquely (as it appears) 'obsessed' with sexual matters to the detriment of the rest of church doctrine:
Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control
Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception.
His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a “home for all” — which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.
Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.
“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a “home for all” — which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.
Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.
“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
Then, we had his 2015 encyclical on climate change which directly rebuked its deniers and those who failed to prioritize it amongst the Catholic community (again, especially - perhaps uniquely - in America):
Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.…A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.
We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions. But the international community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility for paying the costs of this energy transition.
The earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production. The loss of forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which may constitute extremely important resources in the future, not only for food but also for curing disease and other uses. Different species contain genes which could be key resources in years ahead for meeting human needs and regulating environmental problems.… International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts. The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges.
We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions. But the international community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility for paying the costs of this energy transition.
The earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production. The loss of forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which may constitute extremely important resources in the future, not only for food but also for curing disease and other uses. Different species contain genes which could be key resources in years ahead for meeting human needs and regulating environmental problems.… International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts. The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
From what I read here of the actual words used by the pope and by the extracts from the articles - as opposed to the headlines - he seems to me to be on the mark.
I recall an experience I had the only time I went to a Catholic church in Houston. The pews were littered with leaflets excoriating abortion, written by or for by some character called Donaghue, who was head of something called the Catholic League, I think. The language was highly intemperate and the general tone was, well, poisonous - there is no other word - stirring up hatred against supporters of abortion. I quickly left the church and never darkened its doors again.
I remain to this day appalled that the parish priest allowed this sort of thing in his church. I cannot imagine it here in the UK, nor can I imagine a horrible organisation like the Catholic League being given any sort of endorsement by the church hierarchy.
If this is the kind of thing being criticised by the pope, and in these articles, then I must say I think he and they are dead right.
It is precisely that - see, from the article he commended as representing his views on the matter (written by his advisers, including the Jesuit priest Spadaro):
Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A surprising ecumenism | La Civiltà Cattolica
Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.
At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil...
These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.
The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals...
His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil...
These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.
The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals...
His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often “demonized.”
The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels...
Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart...
Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.
Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.
Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”
The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.
Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.
There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself.
The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels...
Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart...
Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.
Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.
Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”
The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.
Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.
There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I think the penultimate paragraph sums it up, for me.
We are supposed to recognise we are all sinners, not go round judging whole classes of people, writing them off and teaching people to hate them. That is the exact opposite of Christ's example.
They would brand him a "snowflake".
exchemist
Veteran Member
Wealthy?
Following the guidance of Vat II, Francis is a pastoral leader of the Church, not a dogmatic head. He is the first pope to be faithful to this pastoral Council.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I am not "far right" but I never saw the Catholic Church as anything but
a church paying lip service to some parts of the Gospels - and making
up the rest of their doctrines.
Paul tells us the best politics - moderation in all things.
This thread is about politics, not religion, I think.
And Bergoglio is a political leader who forgets the Vatican is a foreign country to Italy...and yet he interferes into the Italian political matters...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Donohue tends to be quite an outspoken hot-head at times, so I can understand your frustration. However, Pro-Life means that-- pro life-- and that which is inside a pregnant mother is not a turnip-- it's a human child.
I don't disagree, but I do think that this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All churches have numerous interpretations, and they also have numerous of applications of those interpretations. Trouble is, if one is brought up in one tradition they may conclude that the ones they are not taught are nonsensical.
Maybe actually study Catholic theology, and there are numerous books that can help you along that line. I was brought up in an anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant church, and then I did the studying over years and found out that what I was being told by my old denomination was fraught with bigotry and misundertandings. To accuse the CC as just "paying lip service to some parts of the Gospels..." is really a terribly misguided slam.
When I was a regular attender of my (now ex-) wife's Catholic church, during the run-up to the legalization of same-sex marriage, one Sunday, the homily was delivered by a guest priest. I gather that this was his thing: going from church to church delivering the same homily.
The homily turned out to be a hate-filled tirade against same-sex marriage and homosexuality.
That was the day I stopped kneeling in church. My conscience wouldn't let me kneel to that.
I was never a believer, but looking back, that was the moment I went from the Catholic church being something I merely hadn't accepted yet to something that actively repelled me.
If only they extended the same respect to the pregnant person.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
IMO the doctrines of the Catholic Church are the opposite of those preached by
Jesus and the foundation church.
The RCC took for itself all the worldly temporal powers and ruled over kings.
It created its own suite of "saints" and created its own doctrines, such as
Mary Queen of Heaven, purgatory, the Papal State, indulgences etc..
I am a bible reading person so people ask me about Catholics and are
surprised that I have no idea where Catholics get their beliefs from. Certainly
it wasn't from Jesus (sorry, the son of Mary Queen of Heaven.)
exchemist
Veteran Member
I had thought quite a few of his recent predecessors had been quite serious about their pastoral duties too, though. Or do you mean he deliberately avoids being dogmatic? I suppose that's right, thinking about it.
If I may ask, in what way has Pope Francis preached an "ecumenism of hatred" for his stance to be as you say?
The one thing none can fault him for is in lack of consistency in pursuit of his vision for the church since taking office. He does practice as he preaches.
They certainly did, but their approaches were quite different. John Paul II became an international celebrity and active statesman (almost with a "rockstar quality" given his background in drama), while Benedict XVI took the scholarly and more traditional hierocratic approach.
Francis is very different. He deliberately cultivates the affability, simplicity and down-to-earth approach-ability of your local parish priest - indeed, he wants to appear like a 'parish priest' for the whole world, which is why he so stridently rails against "clericalism" (airs and graces, elitism, obsession with garments and parapharnelia).
With him, dogmatic judgmentalism takes a back seat - and merciful pastoralism, in the form of meeting people where they are and with respect for conscience, has become the main focus (pretty much). The individuals he upbraids are clerics and traditionalists he refers to as "rigids" who want, in his opinion, to use the church's moral teachings as an excuse to "sit in the chair of the Pharisees and throw stones at peoples' lives" (to quote him).
So what one might call 'inflexible dogmatists' are the recipients of his 'righteous' ire. Which, represents quite a substantial tonal shift for the Papacy.
Last edited: