Question about your view of the Papacy for the past 50 years

[rusmeister]

I should clarify that I don't think ALL discussion should be brief. Heck, I've gotten flak for posting chunky Chesterton quotes. But I think there is a difference in speaking to media with owners hostile to your message and a bottom-line common denominator of what most people seem able to take in, and speakng to an audience with greater patience, willingness to understand, and interested in the Truth. The Pope's original comments seem aimed at the latter but were spoken to the former.

 

[RKO]

I suggest we all try to be a little less ascerbic, and realize that we have come to the Church from different directions.

I am just now reading through posts on this thread, but i had to stop at Rus' message to say "Bravo!"

We ALL make personal judgments based on where we are and where we came from in the cosmos. I think the Pope was gently suggesting that we all be more aware of that. He said "Who am I to judge?" We must all keep in mind that we bring our own things, whether they be positive or negative into every piece of information we absorb.
Who, indeed, am I to judge?

 

[RKO]

I agree that his attempts and discouraging our being judgmental on a person's salvation is laudable, but it needed more context. Why didn't this happen with Pope John Paul II? Why didn't this happen with Benedict? Why IS this happening with Francis? I have so many Catholic acquaintances at work and around town and it seems like all of them say the same thing---"boy this Pope Francis is a wing-nut isn't he? The guy seems ok with anything! I miss the last pope!"

Why do they say this? They say it because he's letting the worldly media run the conversation and not stepping up to make the entire conversation clear and rock solid.

Gurney, I would like to add a possibility that you may have considered to this. As a person who crafts messages for mass consumption everyday, I am HARD pressed to think that this Pope, and the organization behind him is simply failing to add context.

It is FAR more likely that he knows exactly what he is saying, how the media will spin it, and the resulting dust up it will cause. Add to that the fact, and it is a fact, that nothing he said with repect to the "Who am I to judge" message contradicts anything in Church teaching. He did not say a thing about the Church accepting or supporting the LGBT lifestyle.

I think he used the bully pulpit to start the discussion, because he truly believes the Church is a hospital for sinners.

Until Francis, I was frankly almost convinced that Christianity did not want me. Not because I have a terribly sinful lifestyle, but because I believe that God does not want the world to oppress people, even terrible sinners. He wants to give them a chance to find him.

And you may not know this because you aren't on the bubble like me, but there are millions and millions of people like me who wonder if the church did NOT want them.

 

[Columba7]

Gurney, before I say anything further I would like to ask for your forgiveness. In truth, the past few weeks have been difficult for me, and it made my judgments hasty. I hope for here on out we can speak to each other in a more irenic manner.

I find it fascinating that you come on here, don't fully read my post, insult me by claiming I said something I didn't, and instead of apologizing as any good Orthodox Christian would, you say nothing but more but insults. You don't seem neutral where the Pope is concerned.

I did not mean to insult. Forgive my abrasive words. I want you to know that if someone made hasty generalizations about you I would criticize them as well. I don't defend the Pope because I am enamored with him, but because I think there might be more going on than we realize and I think it is best to give him the benefit of a doubt, especially when the mainstream media is involved. For all we know he has made efforts to explain himself and it just hasn't gotten the air time that the pro-gay spin received.

Despite your disdain for me, your revulsion, I wish you well and hope you stay an Orthodox Christian. If I in any way have been a detriment in your journey to stay Orthodox, I ask forgiveness. I hope you don't go Catholic, but that's all up to you. If that is where you feel the truth is, then go for it, but I don't recommend it.

I do not disdain you personally. In all honesty I was negatively affected by your words, but that is just it. I don't judge your entire being based on one opinion you harbor.

You have not been a detriment. I will go where God guides me.

I often wonder what good the internet really is. I often think that you and I would disagree at coffee hour, but try to find common ground, and not attack one another with barbs of arrogance. We might even laugh it off over a beer. It seems that the internet can bring out the worst in all of us, and the condescending desire to always be right, and to argue for the sake of hearing our own voices. I'm as guilty as the next man.

May God bless your journey.

As of late I have been so frustrated by internet forum communication that I have considered forsaking it altogether. Too often tone is misunderstood and it is far too time consuming. We could have had and finished this conversation in five minutes over coffee. I thank you for your kind words.

P.S. My MA is actually in history, although I would love to study theology at the graduate level.

 

[Columba7]

If it offers any comfort, I found two statements from Pope Francis that paint him in a more favorable light:

When speaking about the movement to pass SSM in Argentina:

In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…
At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.
This is not simply a political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God's plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."


Read more: Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions |Blogs | NCRegister.com

and

Pope Francis reinforced this impression in his response, when he said—-as he has always said—that “matrimony is between a man and a woman.” Despite the pope’s clear and consistent opposition to marriage equality, many media outlets broadcast misleading headlines, tantalizing the millions of liberal, gay-friendly, marriage-equality-supporting Catholics here in the United States.

Does Pope Francis support gay civil unions? No, no, no.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I kinda agree with gurney here. while I think it's great that he is taking some of the steps to not be a celebrity, just like any political leader when the media starts to spin, a clear statement affirming the RC stance on homosexuality would prolly be welcome.

I mean, in Orthodoxy, a lot of folks seem to get the jitters, including clergy, when a bishop strays to far to the left or right at all (even if it is just a percieved straying) and our statements concerning the Truth are pretty much always made clear all over the place. if we can make sure our statements converning morals are clear, how much easier should the RC have keeping their message clear?

 

[Columba7]

I kinda agree with gurney here. while I think it's great that he is taking some of the steps to not be a celebrity, just like any political leader when the media starts to spin, a clear statement affirming the RC stance on homosexuality would prolly be welcome.

I mean, in Orthodoxy, a lot of folks seem to get the jitters, including clergy, when a bishop strays to far to the left or right at all (even if it is just a percieved straying) and our statements concerning the Truth are pretty much always made clear all over the place. if we can make sure our statements converning morals are clear, how much easier should the RC have keeping their message clear?

There have been many Roman Catholic bishops, cardinals, and PR people who have spoken on behalf of the pope on the matter. It seems that the problem is that it hasn't been Pope Francis himself that has made further statements? Representatives don't cut it?

Edit: I found a couple places where Pope Francis himself has clarified his views. As I suspected, though, it just didn't get the same media attention:

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," the Jesuit pope said. "This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

“All these realities,” he said, “threaten the sanctity of marriage, the stability of life in the home and consequently the life of society as a whole. In this sea of difficulties, we bishops and priests must give a consistent witness to the moral teaching of the Gospel.”

“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” He pointed to the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on marriage and family as a “promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage.”

http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/04/bombshell-pope-francis-clarifies-his.html

 

[Kristos]

Those darn LGBT Nazis!

Didn't they add an "O" recently?

 

[rusmeister]

Those darn LGBT Nazis!

Didn't they add an "O" recently?

It was a "Q", I think. ("Queer" as something "separate".)

But there is no reason to stop there. The thing unifying them all is the particular perversion of sexual lust that attracts them. And so we could see C for children, A for animals and D for the dead, though the actual terms will be more euphemistic and harmless sounding, of course.

 

[RobNJ]

My "view of the papacy for the last 50 years"?
Then & now... it still ain't Orthodox

 

[ArmyMatt]

There have been many Roman Catholic bishops, cardinals, and PR people who have spoken on behalf of the pope on the matter. It seems that the problem is that it hasn't been Pope Francis himself that has made further statements? Representatives don't cut it?

Edit: I found a couple places where Pope Francis himself has clarified his views. As I suspected, though, it just didn't get the same media attention

yeah but if I were him, having the political power that he does, I would hammer it home. someone like him can make the media listen to him. all he would have to do is not be PC and say that sodomy is sin and is perverted. just that alone woulda been a kick starter.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It was a "Q", I think. ("Queer" as something "separate".)

But there is no reason to stop there. The thing unifying them all is the particular perversion of sexual lust that attracts them. And so we could see C for children, A for animals and D for the dead, though the actual terms will be more euphemistic and harmless sounding, of course.

A actually exists as Allies, so it's LGBTQA

 

[rusmeister]

A actually exists as Allies, so it's LGBTQA

The philosophical point of the whole term of letters united by sexual perv..., ahem! preference is that there can be any number of them and at some point you could use all twenty-six letters and not exhaust them. It is not an intelligent or rational movement.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I heard they're soon going to add another "b" for Borg. That would refer to cyborg lifeforms, not quite android, not quite human. They could go both ways. Then they might also add "R" for "replicants" a la Blade Runner. Synthetic, but not quite human, but not android at all? Then there are the mutants. Then a third "b" for "inappropriate behavior with animals" coupled with "p" for pedophile, etc. It's rumored that a whole new bondage thing where people staple bologna to their faces in dungeons might be added in, but that has to pass through the LGBT Nazi council first for approval. It faces an uphill battle!

It was a "Q", I think. ("Queer" as something "separate".)

But there is no reason to stop there. The thing unifying them all is the particular perversion of sexual lust that attracts them. And so we could see C for children, A for animals and D for the dead, though the actual terms will be more euphemistic and harmless sounding, of course.

 

[Columba7]

yeah but if I were him, having the political power that he does, I would hammer it home. someone like him can make the media listen to him. all he would have to do is not be PC and say that sodomy is sin and is perverted. just that alone woulda been a kick starter.

As he said, though, he wants to emphasize things other than the Roman Catholic Church's view of homosexuality. He is very passionate about fighting poverty, for instance. I am actually sympathetic to this. In the wide array of sins we seem to over emphasize a few while completely forgetting the others. That being said, promoting traditional marriage and morality is important.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the Pope really misses the opportunity to emphasize the fallen nature of all these sins---adultery, homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, divorce, inappropriate contentography, greed, lust, etc. He misses an opportunity to steer society away from the modern evolution worship cult and cave man mindset and get us back to Genesis and the Fall. We need to realize that ALL of us are fallen, not just some flukes of evolution, a bunch of mere freaks of nature or mutations. We are in this state of sin for a reason, and homosexuality is just one facet of that sad state of the unnatural. The problem is that society THINKS that all these sexual disorders ARE normal in that they see everything through either Darwin or evolutionary happenstance. The world needs to return to the understanding that we are all a mess, and that through Christ Jesus our sins can be cleansed and our disorders wiped clean. We live in a defeatist culture that tells us we are all screwed, we're all locked into our sins as biological imperatives, and that the old morality is b.s. concocted by a bunch of shamanistic nuts (aka Christians).

The Pope needs to make it clear that homosexuality can be cleansed in Christ just like inappropriate content addiction, alcoholism, greed, selfishness, racism, and every other malady that stems from the Fall.

What happened to seeing Christ as the Great Healer? What happened to the supernatural aspects of the sacramental life? What happened to faith in the Medicine of Immortality that is the Eucharist and the transformative power of Confession? What happened to seeing Christ and the Church as a vehicle for new life and rebirth in God's love?

Why must the Catholic Church emphasize social justice and alleviating poverty to the detriment of the message of transformation? There are millions of people on this Earth who aren't poor, aren't hungry, aren't homeless, but they are in infinitely WORSE spiritual states than the poor and hungry! I wish the Pope could preach a positive message of a transformative God and not just the let's feed the poor and the family is under attack usual sound bytes...

 

[ArmyMatt]

As he said, though, he wants to emphasize things other than the Roman Catholic Church's view of homosexuality. He is very passionate about fighting poverty, for instance. I am actually sympathetic to this. In the wide array of sins we seem to over emphasize a few while completely forgetting the others. That being said, promoting traditional marriage and morality is important.

I get that. being the Pope, he would not need to state the RCC's stance over and over again, just something to hammer the point home. plus, homosexuality (well, basically every sexual sin) is the one sin that even Christians are beginning to accept as fine. and you can be a Christian and still support this. no Christians thinks it's okay to missuse or neglect the poor.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The philosophical point of the whole term of letters united by sexual perv..., ahem! preference is that there can be any number of them and at some point you could use all twenty-six letters and not exhaust them. It is not an intelligent or rational movement.

oh I know, I imagine we will start seeing numbers involved as well. just pointing out that A is taken

 

[127.0.0.1]

The political structure (the Holy Roman Empire) that gave the Papacy its strong political power gave up the ghost after WWI. With that structure gone, the Papacy lost much of its relevance and influence. I believe that Vatican II was its reaction to that loss of relevance.

This sounds like a nice explanation to me. Where is the incentive to listen to the Vatican? What happens to a politician or a nation of they don't? Nothing.

Maybe if you were trying to court Catholic voters you would cozy up to him prior to an election.

Or perhaps you'd be okay with letting the Pope attend a meeting, as long as he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't criticize whatever you're doing.

What would happen to the Pope if he spoke against American power? They'd stop interviewing him, stop talking about him, and the Vatican would die the death it was meant to die, in total obscurity, & powerlessness, known only to a few die-hard Catholic Christians.

I don't know what the new age is, and I've already forgotten the question, but I know the answer is more money; the new god.

 

[127.0.0.1]

no Christians thinks it's okay to missuse or neglect the poor.

Don't speak too soon;

Is Poverty a Sin? by Randy Gage
Poverty Comes from Sin – God, Money and Me...
"Poverty is a result of sin."
http://ethicsdaily.com/help-the-poor-many-christians-prefer-to-blame-them-cms-19774
"If you are good, God will bless you. If you are not good, God will curse you. The resulting conclusion, obviously, is that if you are poor or in any other way disadvantaged, it must be because of some underlying sin for which God is punishing you."

You see, God doesn't want you to suffer in this life, he wants you to coast to Heaven, in a yacht, build with slave labor, to make your poor friends feel inferior. The clearest sign of a saint is whether they can afford a Tesla.

I know, I know, I'm exaggerating and that the articles are more complex than this. Basically there's a popular mode of thought which says that your financial poverty is a result of your own sinfulness. That way we can avoid any discussion about society failing people. In fact it gives us a great excuse to not help them in any way, since it's their own fault they're poor.