Pope Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion

[eastcoast_bsc]

Seems to have gone viral now, trending on most media.

Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic Church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics.

In remarkably blunt language, Francis sought to set a new tone for the church, saying it should be a “home for all” and not a “small chapel” focused on doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.

I will submit, if it wasn't for Po-life advocates and their tireless work, we would not see the pro-abprtion crowd on their heels, like we have seen recently.

I have noticed a trend by the Pontiff where he makes veiled comments designed in my opinion to set the table in the future for big changes.
I am not a Rad-Trad as most here know but I find some disturbing trends via comments by the Pope.

What say ye?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Done to death.

 

[MKJ]

I will submit, if it wasn't for Po-life advocates and their tireless work, we would not see the pro-abprtion crowd on their heels, like we have seen recently.

I am not so sure I would assume that. It may be the case, but I think as an assumption it would be premature. I think that there is a real demographic shift involved, and I don't see that are being really related to the pro-life movement. I also think the movement has actually caused a certain amount of damage by linking itself to politically partisan causes and even allowing itself to become a political tool.

I don't know how you would go about studying a question like that, but it might be interesting to see what someone came up with.

I have noticed a trend by the Pontiff where he makes veiled comments designed in my opinion to set the table in the future for big changes.
I am not a Rad-Trad as most here know but I find some disturbing trends via comments by the Pope.

What say ye?

Well, I am not sure on what basis you think he is making plans for future changes about these things? It is possible I suppose, but I cannot see any reason to think so.

To me they seem totally within the scope of what other Popes and theologians in recent years have said and done, and within what the pastoral teaching of the CC has been, and in fact are addressing some real errors that have cropped up in the Church.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It makes me happy to see the Pope moving in this direction. To quote a friend of mine on the issue, because she said it better than I could:

It is so wonderfully refreshing to see the Pope remind us that Jesus' was a gospel of love and acceptance, and he calls his followers to do good for others, to heal, not to incite hate.

 

[AMDG]

I don't think Jesus would promote the hate against their tiny innocent "neighbor" and would approve of the violence toward women that the abortion crowd does, nor the hate of those who chose to violate God's clear statements on homosexual sex.

I don't think the "Servant of the Servant's of God" (which the Pope is) would go against God's will either--he simply can't. Something else is happening. A problem in translation? A misunderstanding? A lack of the whole story? Something. Stay tuned. We'll probably find out in time.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think the "Servant of the Servant's of God" (which the Pope is) would go against God's will either--he simply can't. Something else is happening. A problem in translation? A misunderstanding? A lack of the whole story? Something. Stay tuned. We'll probably find out in time.

How about you just read the article?

 

[Michie]

Seems to have gone viral now, trending on most media.








I will submit, if it wasn't for Po-life advocates and their tireless work, we would not see the pro-abprtion crowd on their heels, like we have seen recently.

I have noticed a trend by the Pontiff where he makes veiled comments designed in my opinion to set the table in the future for big changes.
I am not a Rad-Trad as most here know but I find some disturbing trends via comments by the Pope.

What say ye?

Tallguy beat you to it. The interview & some commentary can be found in this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7774960/

 

[MikeK]

I pledge my alegiance to Christ's Church, to Pope Francis, and to the Bishhop's Council given to teach us. I will not pick and choose. I will not be a cafeteria Catholic. I will call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, I will advocate for stronger gun control laws in the US, I will oppose abortion in all circumstances, I will advocate for the poor and support their right to health care, education and social mobility, I will judge myself harder than I judge others, I will strive to be a good steward and so on and so forth. Is there anyone out there who's with me? It matters little, I'm okay with going it alone....but a little company would be nice.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

What I got from the article is that they are still sins but we don't hate the sinners just the sin, so feel free to come back to the church you are loved, and seek perfection in Christ.

When the pope talked about the church being a field hospital after a battle he said we treat the wounds not worry about their cholesterol levels.

I think we meant we need to treat what is wrong on thoer lives, love them then they well discover the truth

 

[AvilaSurfer]

.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Done to death.

Actually the story broke today and this is a catholic forum. So if your bored move on.

 

[Michie]

Actually the story broke today and this is a catholic forum. So if your bored move on.

Do you think the Pope is tiptoeing Eastcoast?

 

[MikeK]

I agree with most of this, but honestly, I hope you don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.

While I appreciate your criticism, I know that I am the worst of all sinners, I have been given the Truth yet frequently fall short. Many people give more than I in spite of their lack of belief. The fact that I am so far from perfect does not excuse me from my duty to call out failures to follow Christ's Church - oh, how I wish it did!

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I am not so sure I would assume that. It may be the case, but I think as an assumption it would be premature. I think that there is a real demographic shift involved, and I don't see that are being really related to the pro-life movement. I also think the movement has actually caused a certain amount of damage by linking itself to politically partisan causes and even allowing itself to become a political tool.

I don't know how you would go about studying a question like that, but it might be interesting to see what someone came up with.

Well, I am not sure on what basis you think he is making plans for future changes about these things? It is possible I suppose, but I cannot see any reason to think so.

To me they seem totally within the scope of what other Popes and theologians in recent years have said and done, and within what the pastoral teaching of the CC has been, and in fact are addressing some real errors that have cropped up in the Church.

Trial balloon? That is how I took his statements.

Tonight I listened to a Boston talk show by host Dan Rea. Massachusetts is a predominately Catholic state. The phones were buzzing. Dan is a Catholic and to show how the Pope's statements are reverberating around the city, guests were calling and venting that it is about time. Most viewed the Popes statements as a predecessor as to what is to come.

A lot of callers are still angry with the church.

One guest called and stated that he left the church after he came out of the closet at age 21. That was 30 years ago. He has a partner with whom he lives with and they have a daughter. He was hurt that a priest refused to baptize their daughter 'his claim" and made it clear that he considers himself a "reformed Catholic" Which is usually said as a pejorative.

So Dan Rea put out a request for a priest to call , who was willing to baptize her. within 10 minutes a Priest called and the baptism is going to happen. Another priest called but he was from out of state and he agreed also.

What i got from the show from listening to the guest's including the priest, was that most took the Popes statements the same as I did.

I may be wrong, but I feel the pope needs to stop talking circular with veiled comments and state his positions. I am not sure why Popes and politicians talk in such vague terms. They need to be more direct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Amen!

I am not sure why Popes and politicians talk in such vague terms. They need to be more direct.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

One guest called and stated that he left the church after he came out of the closet at age 21. That was 30 years ago. He has a partner with whom he lives with and they have a daughter. He was hurt that a priest refused to baptize their daughter 'his claim" and made it clear that he considers himself a "reformed Catholic" Which is usually said as a pejorative.

So Dan Rea put out a request for a priest to call , who was willing to baptize her. within 10 minutes a Priest called and the baptism is going to happen. Another priest called but he was from out of state and he agreed also.

What i got from the show from listening to the guest's including the priest, was that most took the Popes statements the same as I did.

How do you get that most people took the Pope's words as harbingers of a dogmatic change from this example? I can see absolutely no reason why a priest should refuse to baptize the daughter of a same-sex couple on dogmatic grounds provided that they were registered in the parish and their daughter was younger than 7.

The parents(') sexuality and marital status shouldn't be an issue. Should a single father or mother have baptism refused to their child due to heir lack of a spouse? How about if they are living with a partner, but remain unmarried? Should they be forced to reveal their sexual orientation?

If the request had been for a priest to marry the couple in a Catholic ceremony, then I could buy the case for people believing that a dogmatic change was coming soon, but this seems to just be more open-minded priests making up for the bigotry of another.

 

[AMDG]

How about you just read the article?

Rather not jump to conclusions. The U.S did back with Vatican II and they were wrong--the Vatican didn't want some of the things that the U.S. church inflicted on us. In fact, some things were so bad that Fr. Groeschel (EWTN) quipped that if he ever sees the "spirit of Vatican II", he plans to drive a stake through it's heart! Then not too long ago, the Muslims misunderstood when the Pope was simply quoting yet another historical document. They got upset and we had explanations flying around until things quieted down. Then the U.S. misunderstood something else and thought that the Pope had changed something, and many got all upset, but in a few weeks time it was understood that nothing had really changed. And so I am content to wait.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

How do you get that most people took the Pope's words as harbingers of a dogmatic change from this example? I can see absolutely no reason why a priest should refuse to baptize the daughter of a same-sex couple on dogmatic grounds provided that they were registered in the parish and their daughter was younger than 7.

The parents(') sexuality and marital status shouldn't be an issue. Should a single father or mother have baptism refused to their child due to heir lack of a spouse? How about if they are living with a partner, but remain unmarried? Should they be forced to reveal their sexual orientation?

If the request had been for a priest to marry the couple in a Catholic ceremony, then I could buy the case for people believing that a dogmatic change was coming soon, but this seems to just be more open-minded priests making up for the bigotry of another.

No their sexuality shouldn't but I did have have a problem with his opinion of the church. He called himself a recovered Catholic. He was adamant that the church except his arrangement.

Isn't part of baptism the promise to bring a child up as a Catholic?

I wouldn't walk into a Mosque or a Synagogue and start to make demands. During the conversation he stated that he attends a wonderful Lutheran church outside of Boston. So whats the beef?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Rather not jump to conclusions. The U.S did back with Vatican II and they were wrong--the Vatican didn't want some of the things that the U.S. church inflicted on us. In fact, some things were so bad that Fr. Groeschel (EWTN) quipped that if he ever sees the "spirit of Vatican II", he plans to drive a stake through it's heart! Then not too long ago, the Muslims misunderstood when the Pope was simply quoting yet another historical document. They got upset and we had explanations flying around until things quieted down. Then the U.S. misunderstood something else and thought that the Pope had changed something, and many got all upset, but in a few weeks time it was understood that nothing had really changed. And so I am content to wait.

I was referring to the original interview. If you're worried about people misinterpreting the Pope's words, try reading them for yourself.

A Big Heart Open to God | America Magazine

 

[RocksInMyHead]

During the conversation he stated that he attends a wonderful Lutheran church outside of Boston. So whats the beef?

Fair enough. It might have been useful to include this from the start, no? To me, "reformed Catholic" could mean any of a wide variety of things. Of course, we don't know the whole story - perhaps he left the Church after his daughter was denied baptism, or maybe he's been considering a return to the faith. I fail to see why else someone outside the Church might want their daughter baptized Catholic.

But still, I don't see how this might signal that people think dogmatic change might be coming. The Pope didn't say anything about interfaith cooperation - the big deal has been his statements on homosexuality/contraception/abortion, none of which really applies in this situation. Still seems like some liberal priests being liberal. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, though in this case it seems more like a hasty response to their sexuality, which is inappropriate.