Skip to comments.12 Quotes From Pope Francis' Exclusive Interview
Posted on 09/20/2013 3:30:31 AM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
It isn't that he needs to say more, he needs to say less. To ascertain which remarks ought to be omitted, all you have to do is monitor Twitter or NYT comments for cheering and whooping from militant gays and Planned Parenthood employees (both occurred yesterday).
I wish the pope's new "gentle hints" inclusiveness strategy succeeds but I have a feeling the number of conversions from these groups (and number of grave sins committed) will not be trending in the direction he hoped.
True. We, as sentient beings, naturally are repelled more by the dismemberment of the fully-formed baby, but from God's perspective, outside of the temporal world, the "making impossible" of a new human life is every bit as repulsive.
Or maybe the sedevacantists are right.
All hail the great pope (Malachy #112?) who caused abortionists to put down their knives, homosexuals to turn away from their same sex attractions, and Catholics to dump their contraceptives down the drain (all this by refusing to talk about their sins). I'll be waiting to hear all the success stories. Please ping me to them.
I know God can make these things happen but the pope is naive thinking he can replicate that with his kid gloves strategy which amounts to a politically correct papacy.
There's something to be said about those churches that follow a fixed calendar. As a Roman Catholic, practicing my faith in a Maronite Catholic Church, it came, first as a surprise, to hear the same Gospel readings each year and, then as a blessing, to anticipate each season, knowing in advance which Gospels would be read. One might expect it to be boring ... instead, it brings comfort.
The Season of Lent kicks off with the Miracle at Cana. That makes sense because it is the first miracle performed by our Lord and it begins his earthly ministry. On the 2nd Sunday of Lent, we hear about the Cleansing of the Leper; followed on week 3 by the The Hemorrhaging Woman. Week 4 we hear the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Week 5, is Sunday of the Paralytic, followed by Bartimaeus the Blind on the 6th week. This is followed by the The Rising of Lazarus on Saturday.
You can easily follow the emerging theme ... each miracle story is more spectacular than the previous one. Like an orchestra, these readings build up towards the crescendo, Hosanna (Palm) Sunday, and our Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. By the time Jesus enters Jerusalem, can there be any doubt that He is the Son of God, the promised Messiah?!! Who else can restore sight to blind, cure a 12 year hemorrhage and raise the dead from their grave?
As I noted above, each time the Parable of the Prodigal Son is read, I hear these words: 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.' Those words drive deep into the heart of the listener. They are humbling, yet bring much comfort and a desire to continue along the path of eternal salvation while pursuing a deeper relationship with our Lord.
In all of the above gospels, the recurrent theme is repentance and forgiveness of sin. God is merciful. He waits, oh so patiently, for sinners to turn their backs on sin and take the rocky path home.
Since Fr. Longenecker addressed the Divine Mercy, I cannot help but recall the visions of St. Faustina. She writes:
"...I saw two roads. One was broad, covered with sand and flowers, full of joy, music and all sorts of pleasures. People walked along it, dancing and enjoying themselves. They reached the end without realizing it. And at the end of the road there was a horrible precipice; that is, the abyss of hell. The souls fell blindly into it; as they walked, so they fell. And their number was so great that it was impossible to count them. And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of the road there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings" (Diary 153).
Our contemporary society lacks the patience to read through a 12,000 word interview to grasp the full meaning of Pope Francis. Instead, 'sound bites' are what prevail. Unless one is knowledgeable in Catholic teaching, it is wrong to interpret the pope's words, without a full analysis of what he is saying within the context of church teaching.
Thanks NYer for that post. I may hasten to add that Jesus seemed to pay more attention to the hardness of heart of the religious people than he ever did on the sins of the unchurched. Not that he did not speak of sin of course He did and so should we. It should not be our only topic of conversation though and that was the Pope’s point. If we speak of sin then we are to proclaim Jesus and his ability to save us from it!
Come home to the truely Reformed churches. We value life.
One of the ways the pill works is as an abortofacient.
As bishop, it is his responsibility to teach, and the fact that the biased press can cherry-pick his words and present them from their point of view is simply something that’s going to happen, no matter how much or how little he says.
Look at poor BXVI, who was depicted at one point as supporting condoms because of a couple of words he said on a plane - while actually in the midst of arguing against condoms as a solution to AIDS. There’s nothing one can do.
What should happen is that priests should be talking to their parishes about these things and explaining them to those who are foolish enough to believe everything CBS or worse sources tell them.
Surprisingly enough, at mass this morning one of our priests who is normally a terrible homilist who never says anything worth listening to and in fact often tells offensive jokes in his homilies, told everybody to stop listening to the press on the subject of the Pope. Read it yourself, he said, and remember that the Pope’s only message was the same as that of Matthew: the message of someone being called by mercy and truth, and the duty of the Church to heal people. This will mean showing them the right way, but they’re never even going to be willing to hear the call and come to the hospital if the doctor starts off by telling them right away everything that’s wrong with them rather than by offering them happiness and safety.
These people came to Jesus only because they were attracted to him and not driven away by him because they were sinners. None of them would have dared approach him if he had been haranguing against tax collectors and soldiers.
The Pope kept saying we have to get back to the sources, and the source of things such as our opposition to abortion is because we value life, the life of every human being (as made in the Image and Likeness of God), no matter how humble (as Francis said yesterday in his talk to a medical association). So we’ve got to present our opposition in terms of the Church’s constant and unvarying assertion of the value of every human life, whether that of the unborn or the handicapped or any other vulnerable, unimportant group.
It has always done this, only tapering off, oddly, after Vatican II, and it should do so more visibly again. I think if female religious orders would stop trying to be priestettes and regroup around things like caring for the sick and the marginalized, for example, it would bring back this witness to the love and concern of the Church for human life. It may convert hearts and minds in the way nothing else can, not even talking about abortion constantly, because pro-abortion people simply have their hands over their ears when it comes to that topic.
So perhaps it is the Jesuit in him, but remember, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Many Jesuits were among our early missionaries here and died horrible deaths at the hands of the people they were attempting to convert, and the Jesuits have always had a sort of militant evangelical approach, using unconventional ways and going to places that looked hopeless.
Yes, I agree. I think unless we present that message, we’re not going to have any takers.
And it does exactly what the rhythm method does.
I find comments of both of you to be helpful and insightful; we’ll just have to see what works, I guess.
It might be that in these end times when Satan is so powerful the nice approached will get steamrolled, although it could still work on an individual basis. These days, the sinners have organized into blocs ready with Alinsky tactics to turn the message back against the Church and toward their own purposes (look, the pope accepts us just the way we are now).
Then you will appreciate Phil Lawler's take on the interview:
For the past several weeksand more than ever in the past 24 hours, since the release of the Popes blockbuster interview in America-- friends have been complaining that the Holy Father has a tendency to say things in a way that could cause confusion. He makes statements that the media can easily distort, they say. And theyre undoubtedly right.
But theres a precedent for that way of speaking. Jesus made people uncomfortable. The Lords words and gestures were often misinterpreted, and his critics found it easy to put things in an unfavorable light. Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners, they charged; He didnt show sufficient respect for the Law. Now the Vicar of Christ is subject to similar accusations. Somehow it fits.
Would it be better, really, if the Pope limited himself to statements that could not possibly be distorted? Should he stop trying to make subtle distinctions, or making new observations about controversial topics? That would be a form of self-censorship: shaping the message to suit the media. Far better, I think for the Pope to speak frankly, telling the truth in and out of season, letting the chips fall where they may.
That's the feeling I get. Once people accept the teachings of Christianity they'll reject abortion and so many other things Christians abhor about today's moral decline.
I also think his strong stand on abortion helps us stay firm about not wanting to be involved in any scheme that funds it, and to question why the likes of Nancy Pelosi aren't excommunicated for supporting the murder of pre-separation infants.
In earlier times many people simply had not heard of the Word of God or of Jesus. Now that is not true, especially if you grew up in this country. These people have heard and rejected God repeatedly though their lives. They selectively tune into TV shows and entertainment that openly mock Christianity and Christians. They use this same humor themselves. So this is not naive group. Some can still be saved, but the "let chips fall as they may" from the previous comments may have chips scattered all over the barren plain if not actually used as projectiles back toward the Church.
I continue to fear that the soft peddle to gain the possible church participation of the 2% (active homosexuals, in this example), risks a watered-down, casual perspective on sin by everyone else, particularly when this is already the trend since Vatican II (contraception, pornography, etc.). So why not use the soft peddle approach when directly preaching to those burdened by the most abominable sins (as Jesus did) and leave the traditional homilies alone?
I know I am not catechized well like most here -- hardly at all really -- but can't accept that I am completely wrong on this.
Excuse me for a minute here Steve (ROFL!!!!) .. okay, I'm back wearing a serious face. While I cannot speak for others in the forum, my "catechesis" began on FR when I first noticed some freepers citing scripture to defend their positions that were in opposition to Catholic Church teaching. It sent me surfing the internet for solid catholic materials. That is how I began my journey and I have never looked back. Go for it, Steve! Catechize yourself - don't leave it up to others. In the process, trust me, you will fall in love with your Catholic faith!! As the chinese adage goes, a journey begins with the first step. Begin here. Feel free to contact me whenever you need a spiritual boost or simply wish to talk. I'm here for you.
Thanks, the real catechesis I have (other than the almost worthless after-school classes in the late sixties) is largely a result of reading things you and Salvation and others posted over the years, which lead me to many other sites and writings. I was mainly referring to lack of formal religious education — not sure what is so funny about that.
Lots of apologetics here too.....click on my name.
Who are you? What is your background?
Just kidding, I would probably even make an exception and attend your parish’s new Mass on next trip to western Oregon as you have said many good things about it.
My background is like NYer’s - I’ve catechized myself with lots of articles, Bible Study, Faith Formation 101 evenings with my priest, etc.
Forgot to ping you.
Steve, anybody here under the age of about 65 was terribly catechized...and many people that age or older have completely forgotten the faith because you never heard orthodox teaching in you parish church after about 1968.
Don’t blame yourself. There’s a whole goldmine of richness and splendor out there - because that’s what Catholic teaching is, not just laws, but glorious things about the love of God, eternal life, happiness here, etc. I will try to send you a little reading list of old things I think you might like.
Neither Salvation, nor I, have had any "formal" religious education. We may have received catechesis as part of our catholic school education but, at that time, we were not paying attention. Let me share a true story with you.
Several years ago, the pastor of my parish, approached and asked me to set up a Religious Education Program in the parish. Moi? Me? I had no formal training in catechesis. But he had picked up on something ... a deep and abiding love for Christ ... and sincerely believed that I could do this. (BTW - very small parish with less than 100 families). After reflecting on my confirmation calling to be a "soldier of Christ" and much prayer, I set about developing a program for the children. It began small with only a handful of kids but tripled in size over the next few years.
One year, a relatively new visitor approached to enroll her 13 year old in the program. She explained that her daughter was baptized in the hospital shortly after birth because of a major birth defect. She survived. As she grew older, her mother enrolled her in the RE program of another parish where her daughter made First Communion - before - First Penance. There was no further religious education, until that day.
The situation posed a conundrum. At age 13, the young girl had had only one year of religious education. She had never made her First Penance. How to place her? The solution was quite simple, yet historical: the Baltimore Catechism.
I haven’t been asked to set up a program for children like NYer was. (Thank you, God!)
But I have set up a program for adults during Lent to read, reflect, meditate, bring into action in their lives all the Sunday readings during Lent.
I have also taught Bible study classes for:
Acts of the Apostles
John and the letters of John
Paul’s prison letters
Women of the Old Testament
Women of the New Testament
the letters of Peter
And we are now doing Psalms.
Oops, I forgot Luke
Thanks, livius, but remember I'm no polyglot!
I agree - for one type of pill. That shouldn’t make all forms of contraception, such as condoms, evil
I agree - for one type of pill. That shouldn’t make all forms of contraception, such as condoms, evil
Oh I agree!