Interview With Pope Francis In America Magazine

[4588686]

I think you can tell a lot about somebody by their enemies.  While he has distanced some people who I really respect I have to say that overall the enemies he's acquired speak very well to his character.  

[Apotheoun]

Yes, it is, but morality does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in a society and a worldview, and being a Christian does not mean imprisoning Christ in such things.

Have I said it exists in a vacuum? True morality is only lived in Christ, which is why I do not accept the pope's de-emphasis on moral issues as legitimate. Dogma (in the modern sense of the word) and morality are inseparable.

[Fidei Defensor]

Have I said it exists in a vacuum? True morality is only lived in Christ, which is why I do not accept the pope's de-emphasis on moral issues as legitimate. Dogma (in the modern sense of the word) and morality are inseparable.

However, I have heard from your own mouth that one cannot learn their way into morality, it must be given through God. Is he wrong in saying that the Church ought to focus more on opening people to God instead of reminding them of their faults?

[Lilllabettt]

I have to wonder if he knows he's going to get misrepresented no matter what he says.  Benedict certainly knew that. 

 

I think a lot of the problems happen when the pope is taken out of context.  At least in this interview, the interviewer did a good job of making sure that he was able explain the points that would have been most wildly misinterpreted (i.e "gays are okay" type of stuff you get from quotes in the NY Times).  I think the hard part of talking about it is talking about the Holy Father's words without "explaining them away", but instead giving them context.  "Sure, the Church's position on homosexual acts hasn't changed, but Pope Francis is emphasizing the need to respect the dignity of all persons..." stuff like that.  

 

What do you mean with the spiritual bouquet? I must have missed something.

 

 

It was a private meeting with a group of religious. It was another off-the-cuff remark. He mentioned how when he was first elected he received a spiritual bouquet from a group. 3000 or so rosaries. He did not like it. It disturbed him that they counted. He wished they had just said "we're praying for you" instead. 

A spiritual bouquet is a traditional practice; many people are brought up on them. Of course we can say "I'm praying for you," but when people want to make a present of prayer they like to give it a form and a shape. It comforts them to have something to give. The point of the 3000 rosaries was not to count them, but to say " look at our present, Holy Father. Look at how many people love you and pray for you." This seemed obvious to me, but it was not to Papa.  I understand he was making a theological point. But its important to remember the little people right? Think of the sensibilities of people with simple faith and take care not to injure them.

I think it is in these small private moments that we measure up as people -- not by what we say in interviews or what we do before cameras. I tell myself: well, if people heard how I act in private every day they might think badly of me too and how unfair I would find that!  But I can't help it. I think of the bouquet  episode whenever some act of humility is reported. I wonder how many of the people who prayed the 3000 rosaries heard about it. It makes me feel rotten.

 

 

ETA - srry i didn't see ur edit

Edited September 20, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Era Might]

what I don't understand is how this gives me the opportunity to stand up and represent.

 

Here's an example. I have untreatable infertility. Well, the treatment is to use an egg donor.

 

I explained to my doctor I don't want to do it, it's against my religion.

 

"well," sez he, "the college of cardinals may be changing that teaching."

 

So I have some options here. I can try to painstakingly explain to the doctor why this teaching will not change, ever; I can explain the role of cardinals, the limits of infaltlibility, and so on. None of which he is remotely interested in. The church's teaching is not sound-bite or small-talk friendly. It will take about 25 minutes for me to explain all this well, which he does not have time for.
 

All he has time for is the headline on cnn.com or the news blip on the radio that confirms for him that the rules can change based on who is Pope.

 

So you know what? He is probably going to give some nice Catholic girl like me the same diagnosis in the next few weeks and provide the same advice about buying an egg donor. Except now he'll have Pope Francis in his back pocket (or rather he THINKS he does).

 

Are we really supposed to talk about this around the water cooler?

 

Christ was a master at the water cooler. He challenged and invited, he did not condemn and moralize. A person only caught glimpses of Christ. To get into the weightier matters of the law they had to follow him. That's all it means to witness, to invite.

[Apotheoun]

However, I have heard from your own mouth that one cannot learn their way into morality, it must be given through God. Is he wrong in saying that the Church ought to focus more on opening people to God instead of reminding them of their faults?

I do not think I ever said that you cannot "learn morality," because certainly as a discursive subject one can do just that, but I do believe that living morally requires divine grace. And so, if a person claims to have faith but lives a life of depravity it follows that his faith is ineffectual. And only a living faith saves. The ability to live morally comes through the grace of God received in the holy mysteries, and through other means of conveyance known only to God, but it is not possible to have a living faith in Christ while secretly (or publicly) living a life of sin. Constant repentance is part of the Christian life, but one cannot simply give up and accept that they are going to always be trapped in sin, for that alone is truly opposed to Christ and the way of life found only in Him. Will people fall, and have I fallen? Yes to both, and the response is always to repent and begin again. God is long suffering.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Apotheoun

[4588686]

A- Hey, have you hear about all those militant secularists being on the defensive because, in light of the new Pope's humility and openness, their claims about the inherent mean-spiritedness and narcissism of the Church is being undermined?  That a lot of people who have felt assaulted and unwelcome by the Church are suddenly excited by the new leader and see him as a man of mercy and empathy?  

 

B-Yeah, best get this shit under control.  Don't want to devalue the stock of the Reactionary persecution-industrial complex.

 

A- LOLLOLLOL KK let's talk some more about how shitty gay kids should feel over something they have no control over.  Better make sure they understand for realzies that their sexuality is objectively disordered!!!  

[Era Might]

Have I said it exists in a vacuum? True morality is only lived in Christ, which is why I do not accept the pope's de-emphasis on moral issues as legitimate. Dogma (in the modern sense of the word) and morality are inseparable.

 

I think the emphasis on "issues" is an unfortunate bastardization of the Gospel, for the reasons I explained in my previous post. The world is not a classroom for schoolteachers to go around lecturing, it is a place to encounter, witness, and invite...not invite to morality, but to Christ, and all that entails.

 

Of course the sinner must repent. But why? Simply because otherwise he would be unable to realise what he had done. The moment of repentance is the moment of initiation. More than that: it is the means by which one alters one's past. The Greeks thought that impossible. They often say in their Gnomic aphorisms, 'Even the Gods cannot alter the past.' Christ showed that the commonest sinner could do it, that it was the one thing he could do. Christ, had he been asked, would have said - I feel quite certain about it - that the moment the prodigal son fell on his knees and wept, he made his having wasted his substance with harlots, his swine- herding and hungering for the husks they ate, beautiful and holy moments in his life. It is difficult for most people to grasp the idea. I dare say one has to go to prison to understand it. If so, it may be worth while going to prison.

 

--Oscar Wilde, "De Profundis"

[Fidei Defensor]

I do not think I ever said that you cannot "learn morality," because certainly as a discursive subject one can do just that, but I do believe that living morally requires divine grace. And so, if a person claims to have faith but lives a life of depravity it follows that his faith is ineffectual. And only a living faith saves. The ability to live morally comes through the grace of God received in the holy mysteries, and through other means of conveyance known only to God, but it is not possible to have a living faith in Christ while secretly (or publicly) living a life of sin. Constant repentance is part of the Christian life, but one cannot simply give up and accept that they are going to always be trapped in sin, for that alone is truly opposed to Christ and the way of life found only in Him. Will people fall, and have I fallen? Yes to both, and the response is always to repent and begin again. God is long suffering.

I agree with most of what you're saying, and what I'm saying isn't contrary to your thinking. What I'm simply saying is that in order to convince someone to turn away from sin, you're better off focusing on what they have to gain.

Edited September 20, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[Apotheoun]

I think the emphasis on "issues" is an unfortunate bastardization of the Gospel, for the reasons I explained in my previous post. The world is not a classroom for schoolteachers to go around lecturing, it is a place to encounter, witness, and invite...not invite to morality, but to Christ, and all that entails.

That is your opinion. But even a reading of the scriptures and the earliest Fathers of the Church shows that the Church has always distinguished between the way of life and the way of death. It is an ancient catechetical method, even if you are unfamiliar with it.

[Era Might]

That is your opinion. But even a reading of the scriptures and the earliest Fathers of the Church shows that the Church has always distinguished between the way of life and the way of death. It is an ancient catechetical method, even if you are unfamiliar with it.

 

I wish what passes for morality sermonizing among Christians were as profound and simple as Psalm 1.

[Apotheoun]

I agree with most of what you're saying, and what I'm saying isn't contrary to your thinking. What I'm simply saying is that in order to convince someone to turn away from sin, you're better off focusing on what they have to gain.

The most that any human being can do is lay the seeds for future growth. God alone can bring about conversion. My point is simply that the Church needs to preach the whole Christ and not a sugar-coated version found only in certain mainline Protestant sects. Should the preaching be joyful? Yes. Should it refrain from speaking the truth about man as revealed in Christ? No. Truth and love are inseparably bound together, and one without the other - as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross once said - is a lie.

[Fidei Defensor]

The most that any human being can do is lay the seeds for future growth. God alone can bring about conversion. My point is simply that the Church needs to preach the whole Christ and not a sugar-coated version found only in certain mainline Protestant sects. Should the preaching be joyful? Yes. Should it refrain from speaking the truth about man as revealed in Christ? No. Truth and love are inseparably bound together, and one without the other - as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross once said - is a lie.

One doesn't have to sugar coat anything, but you can choose to not start out with fire and brimstone. Words can be chosen carefully without compromising the truth.

[Apotheoun]

I wish what passes for morality sermonizing among Christians were as profound and simple as Psalm 1.

Too simple a message becomes a mere slogan. The Church has always resisted that course, as its creeds - lengthy as they are - reveal.

[Era Might]

Too simple a message becomes a mere slogan. The Church has always resisted that course, as its creeds - lengthy as they are - reveal.

 

Yes, that was the great sin of Christ. If only he had written more creeds, maybe he wouldn't have been killed.