Priest to Pope Francis: ‘You are hurting my parish’ by promoting homosexuality

[IcyChain]

It seems you have learned how to answer questions from the pope. If you want to truly grow in grace, I suggest you find another teacher.

If you want to truly grow in grace, I suggest that you humble yourself and consider that you could be wrong, and that the vicar of Christ could be correct.

 

[Chrystal-J]

If you want to truly grow in grace, I suggest that you humble yourself and consider that you could be wrong, and that the vicar of Christ could be correct.

Pope's wrong.

 

[fide]

If you want to truly grow in grace, I suggest that you humble yourself and consider that you could be wrong, and that the vicar of Christ could be correct.

Certainly the pope "could" be correct - he has correctly (i.e. has been consonant with Catholic Sacred Tradition) in some other opinions he has proclaimed - but in his understanding of moral theology, he has been inconsistent and contradictory. The Catholic understanding of grace goes beyond the one category of actual grace, as of sin, he (as well as you, apparently) does not consider the grades of sin which affect one's relationship with God. That is, "all are sinners" - true - but all are not in mortal sin, not all have lost the state of grace, nor are all apostates.

When a child or an adult is baptized, he receives sanctifying grace and forgiveness of all sin, with the infusion into his soul of Virtues including the theological virtues (Faith, Hope, Holy Charity), and Gifts including the seven (Isaian) Gifts of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord - which are needed to perfect the Virtues) - all these are habitual gifts and graces infused in potency - in potential - not actualized to the perfection possible for the soul who desires to please God and live in obedience to His will. Thus we need "actual graces" to put into act in real time the potentials, the potencies given us in Baptism.

When you or I were first baptized we did not immediately start believing in God and in all God has revealed with supernatural faith. We received the "virtue" of faith - the power to believe, the potency of living faith - but we did not immediately begin living as a faithful Catholic, obedient to His will in all things. Each act of believing required - requires - a gift of actual grace to "enact" that act.

But what if the potency to believe, to hope or to love with the kind of love with which God loves (Holy Charity) - what if this one of the three theological virtues has been gravely sinned against and thus definitively rejected in the soul of the sinner? A man can sin gravely, culpably, against the virtue of Charity in some specific act, for example, but not against Faith. Suppose he continued to believe in God, but he chose to love himself to the exclusion of God in that act - he sinned a mortal sin, and thereby lost sanctifying grace in his soul. He has become dead to God, the life of God is no longer in him, yet he still believes in God!

IF the faith still in him is strong, in spite of his overly strong self-love, he will receive the actual grace God may offer to move him to Confession, and to restoration of his relationship with God in love. He can begin again a better man (like St. Peter did!) and begin again to grow in holiness.
BUT IF his self-love is strong, he could refuse the actual grace need for repentance and Confession and restoration - such would be offensive to that strong self-love - he could again choose self over God, and then sin gravely, culpably, this time against the virtue of Faith. It would then be likely that all hope would be lost as well - although perhaps he could receive actual grace to hope in God's mercy, and thus in the possibility of an eternity with God in Heaven - and perhaps thus move himself toward humility, Confession, and restoration of his life in Christ.

Free will must be a factor, God's grace is a necessity, our humble obedience is essential, our holiness is our vocation.

"Accompany" the sinner is a strange term to use - easy to misapply - why would a teacher or a guide choose ambiguity in leading his disciples? Why is this pope most criticized by his critics with terms like "confusing", "ambiguous", "duplicitous" ? Jesus was happy to see Nathaniel approaching Him: "“Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.”

Jesus told His disciples: "You are my friends if you do what I command you."
[He did not say, I 'will accompany' you no matter how you choose to live.]

 

[IcyChain]

Certainly the pope "could" be correct - he has correctly (i.e. has been consonant with Catholic Sacred Tradition) in some other opinions he has proclaimed - but in his understanding of moral theology, he has been inconsistent and contradictory. The Catholic understanding of grace goes beyond the one category of actual grace, as of sin, he (as well as you, apparently) does not consider the grades of sin which affect one's relationship with God. That is, "all are sinners" - true - but all are not in mortal sin, not all have lost the state of grace, nor are all apostates.

When a child or an adult is baptized, he receives sanctifying grace and forgiveness of all sin, with the infusion into his soul of Virtues including the theological virtues (Faith, Hope, Holy Charity), and Gifts including the seven (Isaian) Gifts of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord - which are needed to perfect the Virtues) - all these are habitual gifts and graces infused in potency - in potential - not actualized to the perfection possible for the soul who desires to please God and live in obedience to His will. Thus we need "actual graces" to put into act in real time the potentials, the potencies given us in Baptism.

When you or I were first baptized we did not immediately start believing in God and in all God has revealed with supernatural faith. We received the "virtue" of faith - the power to believe, the potency of living faith - but we did not immediately begin living as a faithful Catholic, obedient to His will in all things. Each act of believing required - requires - a gift of actual grace to "enact" that act.

But what if the potency to believe, to hope or to love with the kind of love with which God loves (Holy Charity) - what if this one of the three theological virtues has been gravely sinned against and thus definitively rejected in the soul of the sinner? A man can sin gravely, culpably, against the virtue of Charity in some specific act, for example, but not against Faith. Suppose he continued to believe in God, but he chose to love himself to the exclusion of God in that act - he sinned a mortal sin, and thereby lost sanctifying grace in his soul. He has become dead to God, the life of God is no longer in him, yet he still believes in God!

IF the faith still in him is strong, in spite of his overly strong self-love, he will receive the actual grace God may offer to move him to Confession, and to restoration of his relationship with God in love. He can begin again a better man (like St. Peter did!) and begin again to grow in holiness.
BUT IF his self-love is strong, he could refuse the actual grace need for repentance and Confession and restoration - such would be offensive to that strong self-love - he could again choose self over God, and then sin gravely, culpably, this time against the virtue of Faith. It would then be likely that all hope would be lost as well - although perhaps he could receive actual grace to hope in God's mercy, and thus in the possibility of an eternity with God in Heaven - and perhaps thus move himself toward humility, Confession, and restoration of his life in Christ.

Free will must be a factor, God's grace is a necessity, our humble obedience is essential, our holiness is our vocation.

"Accompany" the sinner is a strange term to use - easy to misapply - why would a teacher or a guide choose ambiguity in leading his disciples? Why is this pope most criticized by his critics with terms like "confusing", "ambiguous", "duplicitous" ? Jesus was happy to see Nathaniel approaching Him: "“Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.”

Jesus told His disciples: "You are my friends if you do what I command you."
[He did not say, I 'will accompany' you no matter how you choose to live.]

I agree with most of what you wrote above.

Regarding the criticism of Pope Francis, the presence of criticism itself does not mean that the criticism is valid. I suspect that no teacher was criticized more harshly than our blessed Lord. The question is whether the criticisms are valid. Certain people could not receive the teachings of our Lord because their hearts were hardened against him. That could be the case with some people and the vicar of Christ. I do not find this pope confusing, ambiguous, or duplicitous. I do not believe that he has some secret desire to overturn the teachings of the Church and to usher in an era of sin. I think he has a different manner of communication and a different perspective than previous popes, but that could ultimately benefit the Church. We shall see.

I don't find the term "accompany" a sinner to be strange. We are all sinners. Yes, some situations are much worse than others. Some people are much more depraved than others, but we all go through the same process of growing in holiness and rooting sin out of our lives, but we are each at different stages along the path.

I have a cousin who has undergone "sex change" surgery and is living a lifestyle that I would call hedonistic, to say the least. Is she evil? I don't think so. I've known her since she was born. I think she has lost her way, that she has serious mental issues, that she is in serious need of help. I am not going to cut her out of my life and say "Get away from me Satan". I could be the decent only person in her life that she will even listen to, and I try to nudge her in the right direction where I can.

I suspect that a person who has lost all of the theological virtues can still be redeemed, but I have not considered that question. But it has not been my understanding that the passage you recited from Hebrews has been interpreted to mean that such a person cannot be redeemed, if that is how you interpret it. I have certainly seen Christians fall from grace and commit great sins against God, and come back to repentance.

I would need to study the issue further, but my general sense is that God will in certain circumstances "turn his back" (in a sense) on certain people and give them over to their sins (perhaps we see that idea with God hardening Pharaoh's heart, for example), where he has foreseen that they will never come to repentance.

Is that the idea that you have in mind? That people in certain types of types of relationships (e.g. same-sex relationships) are irredeemable, thus there is no reason for the Church to "accompany" them because they are on a certain path to damnation?

I think it could be the case that certain people are irredeemable, but I would not assume this generally with respect to a entire class of people (e.g. active homosexuals).

 

[fide]

I agree with most of what you wrote above.

Regarding the criticism of Pope Francis, the presence of criticism itself does not mean that the criticism is valid. I suspect that no teacher was criticized more harshly than our blessed Lord. The question is whether the criticisms are valid. Certain people could not receive the teachings of our Lord because their hearts were hardened against him. That could be the case with some people and the vicar of Christ. I do not find this pope confusing, ambiguous, or duplicitous. I do not believe that he has some secret desire to overturn the teachings of the Church and to usher in an era of sin. I think he has a different manner of communication and a different perspective than previous popes, but that could ultimately benefit the Church. We shall see.

I don't find the term "accompany" a sinner to be strange. We are all sinners. Yes, some situations are much worse than others. Some people are much more depraved than others, but we all go through the same process of growing in holiness and rooting sin out of our lives, but we are each at different stages along the path.

I have a cousin who has undergone "sex change" surgery and is living a lifestyle that I would call hedonistic, to say the least. Is she evil? I don't think so. I've known her since she was born. I think she has lost her way, that she has serious mental issues, that she is in serious need of help. I am not going to cut her out of my life and say "Get away from me Satan". I could be the decent only person in her life that she will even listen to, and I try to nudge her in the right direction where I can.

I suspect that a person who has lost all of the theological virtues can still be redeemed, but I have not considered that question. But it has not been my understanding that the passage you recited from Hebrews has been interpreted to mean that such a person cannot be redeemed, if that is how you interpret it. I have certainly seen Christians fall from grace and commit great sins against God, and come back to repentance.

I would need to study the issue further, but my general sense is that God will in certain circumstances "turn his back" (in a sense) on certain people and give them over to their sins (perhaps we see that idea with God hardening Pharaoh's heart, for example), where he has foreseen that they will never come to repentance.

Is that the idea that you have in mind? That people in certain types of types of relationships (e.g. same-sex relationships) are irredeemable, thus there is no reason for the Church to "accompany" them because they are on a certain path to damnation?

I think it could be the case that certain people are irredeemable, but I would not assume this generally with respect to a entire class of people (e.g. active homosexuals).

Please explain what you mean in this: "... we all go through the same process of growing in holiness and rooting sin out of our lives, but we are each at different stages along the path."

I know very few people who ever consider "growing in holiness" at all. I know some who just "live" and try to not offend God "too much". I know others who seem to think everyone who is "sincere"- consistent in their own "truth" - is already "holy". Others who reject the concept of holiness as religious fantasy.

 

[IcyChain]

Please explain what you mean in this: "... we all go through the same process of growing in holiness and rooting sin out of our lives, but we are each at different stages along the path."

I know very few people who ever consider "growing in holiness" at all. I know some who just "live" and try to not offend God "too much". I know others who seem to think everyone who is "sincere"- consistent in their own "truth" - is already "holy". Others who reject the concept of holiness as religious fantasy.

That's interesting. My family is not Catholic, but I would say that 90% of my friends are practicing Catholics. When I wrote "we all" I was sort of speaking from that perspective. I did not intend to suggest that every person is attempting to actively "grow in holiness" as a Catholic would typically use the phrase.

But nevertheless, I think many people can grow in holiness in some sense, regardless of their state in life. It may not be an active and conscious desire to act in a way that is pleasing to God, but at some level I think many people have a moral sense, strive to do good, and to be a better person. These folks, I think it can be said that they are also growing in holiness.

I was an atheist for a number of years. As you might imagine, pleasing the Lord was not exactly one of my top priorities. At the same time, I was not a person without morals. I wasn't a hedonist. I still tried to treat others the right way. I would say that bit by by, I grew and eventually found my way into the Church. There are certain aspects of morality, I think, that are common to all people regardless of their state of life and religious beliefs, and in which we can improve. I think you can sort of see that idea in Romans 2:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​

 

[fide]

... I would need to study the issue further, but my general sense is that God will in certain circumstances "turn his back" (in a sense) on certain people and give them over to their sins (perhaps we see that idea with God hardening Pharaoh's heart, for example), where he has foreseen that they will never come to repentance.

Is that the idea that you have in mind? That people in certain types of types of relationships (e.g. same-sex relationships) are irredeemable, thus there is no reason for the Church to "accompany" them because they are on a certain path to damnation? .....

Yes, that is in general what I refer to - the mystery of God's working good through the evil He allows in human freedom. He does know well, the heart of every man - Jesus tells us this:

Jn 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did;
Jn 2:24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them,
Jn 2:25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

Jesus was withholding Himself from them, in a sense, not "accompanying" them on their journey to His Cross.

 

[fide]

That's interesting. My family is not Catholic, but I would say that 90% of my friends are practicing Catholics. When I wrote "we all" I was sort of speaking from that perspective. I did not intend to suggest that every person is attempting to actively "grow in holiness" as a Catholic would typically use the phrase.

But nevertheless, I think many people can grow in holiness in some sense, regardless of their state in life. It may not be an active and conscious desire to act in a way that is pleasing to God, but at some level I think many people have a moral sense, strive to do good, and to be a better person. These folks, I think it can be said that they are also growing in holiness.

I was an atheist for a number of years. As you might imagine, pleasing the Lord was not exactly one of my top priorities. At the same time, I was not a person without morals. I wasn't a hedonist. I still tried to treat others the right way. I would say that bit by by, I grew and eventually found my way into the Church. There are certain aspects of morality, I think, that are common to all people regardless of their state of life and religious beliefs, and in which we can improve. I think you can sort of see that idea in Romans 2:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​

I too was an atheist for some years, agnostic for others, very liberal protestant for some, protestant minister for a few, finally a "returning home former ex-Catholic" thanks be to the patient mercy of God. It is painful to see welcomed in this Church today, much moral and theologial insanity that I was immersed in for the darker times of my life. I have know many, many in that journey who were "good people" in the morality and theology that they accepted. The turning point in my life was the inner discovery - realization - of objective, absolute reality. And the corresponding dead-end emptiness of the subjectivism / relativism / progressivism / ultimate self-idolatry of modernism, or extended post-modernism, or our times.

 

[IcyChain]

I too was an atheist for some years, agnostic for others, very liberal protestant for some, protestant minister for a few, finally a "returning home former ex-Catholic" thanks be to the patient mercy of God.

I know what you mean when you say "thanks to the patient mercy of God". I think there are two competing kinds of views. One view is kind of a "tough love" approach. Sometimes you have to be tough on people, give them the harsh truth, or even cut them off or punish them, for their own good. The other view is a more "gentle" approach where you just meet people where they are at, accept their flaws, stay by their side and try to correct those flaws little by little. I think there are times for both approaches when dealing with people. The approach that might be good for one person may not be good for another.

It is painful to see welcomed in this Church today, much moral and theologial insanity that I was immersed in for the darker times of my life.

I hear you. From your perspective, you see the Church as regressing. I can understand the frustration from people that view the situation that way.

I have know many, many in that journey who were "good people" in the morality and theology that they accepted. The turning point in my life was the inner discovery - realization - of objective, absolute reality. And the corresponding dead-end emptiness of the subjectivism / relativism / progressivism / ultimate self-idolatry of modernism, or extended post-modernism, or our times.

Intersting topic.

Well, we do not know as a mathematical fact that the moral teachings of the Catholic church are objectively true. If that were the case there would be no need for grace, for faith. We make a conscious choice to believe that what the Church teaches is the objective truth, as an act of faith in response to the grace that God has given us. So I think that even our beliefs are "relative" in that sense.

There seems to be this notion that many people today have shunned the very idea of "objective truth" but personally I do not think that is the problem. I think that most people today do believe in the idea of "objective truth" but have simply concluded that the Catholic Church (and other Christian churches) do not teach the objective truth.

If anything, I would say that the current problem is more one of "scientism" than "subjectivism". It's taking this idea of "objective" reality to a sort of an extreme whereby if we cannot mathematically prove X, then we are not bound to follow it. It's kind of the idea that truth only exists in what we can tangibly feel with our hands and see with our eyes, more than "relativism". And it is impossible to prove Christian morality as a matter of science.

Perhaps we need to focus more on the "beauty" and "goodness" of the Church moreso than her "truth", since "truth" has been reduced down to a matter of "science" in our modern times. . .

But that's just my personal take on the modern problem. I could be wrong.

 

[fide]

.......

Well, we do not know as a mathematical fact that the moral teachings of the Catholic church are objectively true. If that were the case there would be no need for grace, for faith. We make a conscious choice to believe that what the Church teaches is the objective truth, as an act of faith in response to the grace that God has given us. So I think that even our beliefs are "relative" in that sense.

There seems to be this notion that many people today have shunned the very idea of "objective truth" but personally I do not think that is the problem. I think that most people today do believe in the idea of "objective truth" but have simply concluded that the Catholic Church (and other Christian churches) do not teach the objective truth.

If anything, I would say that the current problem is more one of "scientism" than "subjectivism". It's taking this idea of "objective" reality to a sort of an extreme whereby if we cannot mathematically prove X, then we are not bound to follow it. It's kind of the idea that truth only exists in what we can tangibly feel with our hands and see with our eyes, more than "relativism". And it is impossible to prove Christian morality as a matter of science.

Perhaps we need to focus more on the "beauty" and "goodness" of the Church moreso than her "truth", since "truth" has been reduced down to a matter of "science" in our modern times. . .

But that's just my personal take on the modern problem. I could be wrong.

The absolute reality of Truth - God - is not made certain by "proof", but by the witness (of the Holy Spirit) to the spirit of a man. Morality flows from such an interior encounter with the Absolute and the Eternal. Goodness is truth, and neither is affected (or "created"!) by what a man thinks he can prove or disprove. God says simply "I AM." The most we can do is listen, learn and live within his goodness and truth: a divine beatitude He wants to share with us.

It is possible to possess certitude that Truth IS, whether one knows what the fullness of Truth is, or not

Jn 8:31 Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,
Jn 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

The Greek word rendered "continue" - meno - is a strong, important, favorite word in John's Gospel, meaning "remain" - "dwell" - "abide" - one translation has "If you make your home in my word..." - if you "live in" it - then you will know the truth and the truth will make you free.

Such is the real power of the Word of God, whose work in human persons is shared with His Holy Spirit. Together they can transform a man. More than reform, or inform, they can transform the old into a new man, born or begotten from above.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please try to be civil with each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reopening. ​