Skip to comments.The key to understanding Pope Francis: the 99 lost sheep
Posted on 09/21/2013 7:01:20 AM PDT by NYer
If the Pope’s main responsibility is to keep us all comfortable, then Pope Francis is failing miserably.
But that’s not really the Pope’s job, is it?
For the past several weeks—and more than ever in the past 24 hours, since the release of the Pope’s 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 they’re undoubtedly right.
But there’s a precedent for that way of speaking. Jesus made people uncomfortable. The Lord’s 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 didn’t 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.
Yes, the media will distort the message. They will pretend, as far as they can, that Pope Francis has changed the fundamental message of the Church. But sooner or later that ploy will fail, because the Pope will say something directly contrary to the message the media have attributed to him.
In this case, it didn’t take too long. The ink wasn’t dry on all the stories alleging that the Pope wanted to hear less talk about abortion, when the Pope himself delivered a blistering indictment of the “throwaway culture” that denigrates the value of human life. “Every unborn child unjustly condemned to be aborted has the face of Jesus Christ,” the Pope told a group of doctors today.
Those who read the Pope’s interview carefully, rather than relying on sensational and simplistic interpretations, realize that he did not say anything terribly new. His style of speech, his approach to issues, is unfamiliar. But the content of his message is the familiar teaching of the Catholic Church.
Oddly enough, some of the Pope’s critics recognized that he had not endorsed the changes in doctrine that they longed for. The Washington Post acknowledged that the interview contained no new teachings. Damon Linker, writing in the New Republic, sounded forlorn as he observed: “The interview contains no sign that the Pope is willing to budge on any of the items on the progressive Catholic wish-list of reforms.”
Here we have an odd phenomenon: While the Pope is allegedly trying to downplay unpopular Church teachings, the very critics of those teachings are emphasizing them! Dissident Catholics are anxious to exploit the Pope’s words, to argue that we no longer need to oppose legal abortion and same-sex marriage. But critics of the Church are, in effect, reining in the dissenters, reminding them that the Church still does oppose abortion and homosexual activities. One way or another, as Pope Francis observed, the teachings of the Church on these issues are well known.
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods,” Pope Francis said (emphasis added).” He did not say that we should be silent. Later he added that “it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time (emphasis added again). The Pope’s key observation fell between those two sentences, when he said: “But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.”
It is the context, then—not the controversial issues themselves—that concerns the Pontiff. He does not want the Church to hammer away on points that are already well known. He sees a problem of diminishing returns. The people who are disposed to accept the Church’s teachings are already convinced; those who are hostile to those teachings are no longer listening. We need to find new ways to reach them.
And we can reach them, the Pope promises, if we return to the fundamental truths of Christian faith. “A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation,” he told his Jesuit interviewer. Someone who accepts the essential truth of the Gospel, someone who sees the route to salvation, might then be open to hearing more about Catholic moral teaching. On the other hand, those who disregard the essentials—those who have come to see the Church as merely a political structure, imposing old rules—are unlikely to be persuaded by one more iteration of the arguments.
(By the way, some of my friends have argued, with ample justification, that the Pope is simply wrong to say that the Church has spoken out too often about abortion, homosexuality, and contraception. In fact, my friends observe, bishops and priests have been conspicuously silent on those issues. That is sadly, undeniably true. Yet still the Pope has a point. Bishops and priests do not constitute the Church. We are the Church—you and I, as well as the bishops and priests and religious. Have we, you and I, sometimes taken pleasure in denouncing an evil, when it would have been more effective, and more charitable, to say something about God’s merciful love? I, for one, plead guilty to that charge.)
Is this a radically new message? Not at all! Pope Benedict XVI frequently said that the faith is not a matter of accepting intellectual propositions, but a matter of making a commitment to Christ. Pope John Paul II admonished the faithful that our job, as missionaries in a secular world, is to help our neighbors “see the face of Christ.” This remains the fundamental challenge of evangelization: to bring people to Christ. With the help of grace, their behavior might change after they embrace the faith—not before.
So why are so many faithful Catholics upset by what the Pope has said? Because he has abandoned Church teaching? No. Because he has said something very new? No. Many of my friends, I fear, are disturbed because the Pope’s approach—his cajoling tone, his irenic line of thought—might give aid and comfort to the enemy. Yet that’s dangerous for a Christian, isn’t it—to think of people as enemies?
By now we all know people—friends, neighbors, relatives, colleagues—who have procured abortions, or who are active homosexuals, or live in irregular marital situations. How do we treat these people? Too often, I fear, we try to ignore them, or at least ignore their problems. We could do better.
But how can we help them? It will not help, in most cases, to keep telling them that their behavior is immoral. They have tuned out that message. But maybe, with patience and prayer, we can help them to recognize the grace of God, to see the power of the Gospel, to accept the message of mercy that Pope Francis emphasizes at every opportunity. A friend may be willing to confront his own sin, as soon as he realizes that a loving God is ready to forgive him.
A few weeks ago I wrote in this space to support John Allen’s suggestion that Pope Francis should be known as the “Pope of Mercy.” Let me now sharpen that suggestion, by pointing to one statement that strikes me as the hermeneutical key to understanding the pastoral approach taken by this surprising new Pontiff.
In June, in a talk to an ecclesiastical congress of the Rome diocese, Pope Francis recalled the story of the Good Shepherd, who leaves his 99 sheep to search for one that is lost. Then he suggested that in today’s secular culture, the shepherds of the Catholic Church confront a very different problem. “It’s the 99 who we’re missing!” he said. “In this culture, let’s face it, we have only 1. We are the minority!”
The pastor of a Catholic church has several challenges that he must approach simultaneously: encouraging good Catholics to become better Catholics; encouraging indifferent Catholics to become good Catholics; encouraging lapsed Catholics to become active; and encouraging non-Catholics to enter the Church. Ordinarily the pastor works first with the active Catholics—with those who are already in the pews—hoping to form a cadre that will help him evangelize others. That was certainly the approach taken by Benedict XVI, who testified to the power of a “creative minority” in the Church and in the world.
Pope Francis, however, sees a need for a more drastic approach. The sheep are leaving the fold; the 99 are already lost! So he has devoted his first attentions to the outsiders; he speaks constantly of bringing the Gospel to those “on the periphery.” As a young Jesuit, he wanted to be a missionary. As things turned out he never served in distant lands, but he brought a missionary outlook to his work in Buenos Aires, and now he has brought it to Rome.
More to the point, Pope Francis has brought his missionary outlook to you and to me. He wants us to join him in the task of bringing the Gospel to the “periphery,” telling our neighbors about God’s infinite mercy, proclaiming the joyful news of salvation. He’s asking us to do things that, frankly, we are not always comfortable doing.
Yes, the Pope makes me uncomfortable. As well he should.
The Parable of the Lost Sheep- The Lord speaks of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine sheep to search for one who is lost. Would a shepherd likely do this? Probably not! The passage drips with irony, even absurdity. Perhaps if the lost sheep was near at hand he might venture over the next hill. But the average human shepherd would cut his losses and stay with the ninety-nine. Many of us might even consider it irresponsible to leave ninety-nine to search for one. It's crazy!
Crazy! A Homily for the 24th Sunday of the Year
It is their teachings which draw people....be kind, be loving, visit the sick, respect, etc etc....it’s all about purpose and goodness and faith.
Its the 99 who were missing! he said. In this culture, lets face it, we have only 1. We are the minority! [Pope Francis]Indeed. Loved this article; Phil Lawler is always a good read.
Zot, One of your favorite parables.
A pastoral outréach is great. But I pray the church will continue preaching the moral message, too. Right now there are so few places other than the church where basic morality is even considered (other than as fodder for jokes).
Indeed, failing to warn those of the consequences of their actions isn't going to help them, or us, in the long run.
If the medium’s still the message, the Vatican PR folks certainly chose the wrong magazine, despite the Pope’s connection with its publishers, to explain the “new” message. The ultra-leftist “America” has been propping up the so-called “theology” of the so-called “99” for 3/4 of a century! No orthodox Catholic will take a word in this article at face-value.
IMO, it's only a matter of time before the Almighty puts an end to the wholesale slaughter of these innocents.
The good Pope would do better to more forcibly warn of this sin against both God and humanity.
Did you see his address to medical personnel the next day where he did not change one iota on the abortion issue?
I think that instead of trying to convert the unbelievers, the Pope would do better to court the protestant churches and to try to convince them to rejoin the catholic line. He may be only 1 sheep of a 100, but the 99 are still mostly christian believers, they just aren’t catholic. In particular, he should more forcefully address their sola fide and sola scriptura doctrines. If he presented concrete scriptural evidence for the necessity of good works and of the sacraments, and presented it directly to the ministers of the protestant churches instead of their constituents who listen to the ministers before the Pope, the reunification of the church just might happen.
I posted the following link on another thread but perhaps you missed it. Fr. Longenecker pinpoints the problem, most insightfully.
Beginning in the 60's, Christian preachers started to play down the sin thing. People were sick not sinful. They were wounded and needed healing. They were confused and needed guidance they were lost and needed to be found. They were OK, they just needed to find out that they were OK.
A few generations went by and people no longer understood what this thing called sin was at all. Furthermore we told them that they were wounded and lost and confused and sick, but they told us they didnt feel wounded or lost or sick or confused so we clearly had the problem they didnt.
Suddenly they didnt know that they needed a saviorsomeone who supernaturally forgave them of their sins because they didnt know that they were sinners because we didnt tell them what sin was.
The high standards of Catholic moral teaching are given as a criteria for diagnosis of the human condition. The preacher who points out sin is not a bad guyhes a good guylike the doctor who gives the bad news that what you thought was heartburn is actually cancer and you need surgery and quick. If he just pats you on the head and smiles and gives you an aspirin he may be a nice guy, but hes not a good doctor.
As the Pope has pointed out in todays interview just telling people they are sinners in an arbitrary way doesnt make sense. They dont know why what they are doing is wrong. Just saying that its wrong because the Bible says so doesnt work. They dont believe the Bible. Just saying its wrong because I am an authority figure and I say its wrong doesnt work because they do not accept my authority.
Essentially, moral relativism has taken over in western society. What was once considered sin has been twisted by this society, even to its legalization. Preaching is no longer effective when people respond that government has given them them their legal rights. Hence, they begin to doubt the existence of God. Think carefully about that ... look around you ... those folks cohabiting outside of marriage, contracepting, aborting their unwanted children ... all legal ... are "attached" to their sin and blinded by its legalization. To reach them, requires a more loving approach.
Sorry, but good luck with that.
A better approach would be presenting them with an undeniable proof of YHVH's existence and the outcome of inequity gone unchecked. Unfortunately most Christian religions are failing miserably in this fundamental area.
To reach them requires removing the mistranslations, inconsistences, and outright fabrications being presented as the Word of the Almighty today. People are much smarter today and better able to think for themselves.
What they really need, and are seeking, is the truth! Someone holding their hand and telling them they are really good little boys and girls and that everything will be alright, isn't going to work, and will only lead to more iniquity.
This was all was prophesied thousands of years ago and we're seeing those prophecies being fulfilled right before our eyes.
Unfortunately, Scripture doesn't agree with him on those subjects, so he wouldn't be able to use them. As far as good works go, they show faith, they don't accrue salvatory credits or merit, that has already happened through Christ.
I have been reading a little about Bart Ehrman, a Scripture scholar who has been doing a lot of writing and speaking over the past 20 ore 30 years about what he would call about the "mistranslations, inconsistencies, and outright fabrication" in Scripture. This approach has resulted in his conversion from Evangelical Christianity to agnosticism, and has acted as a solvent, dissolving the faith of hundreds of students he has influenced.
I'm not sure I understand your point: how does a debunking and skeptical approach toward our received Scripture assist in people's moral guidance?
"People are much smarter today"
That I find dubious.
>That I find dubious.
LOL, in a way you have a point, however it depends on the grading curve you are using. In this case, we have to use a very large one. :)
I'm not familiar with Bart Ehrman, or his teachings. Therefore unable to even hazard a guess as to what the problem might be. I do know of fast growing movements to uncover the truth and to share what they've discovered.
Unlike many other beliefs that are seeing a decline in membership, these assemblies are growing daily and very enthusiastic about their journey to a better understanding.
The unleavened truth is for more convincing than manmade fabrications or misunderstandings could ever be.
A visiting priest gave an interesting homily on this parable. He said that a shepherd would leave the 99 if he had a sheep dog to watch them. Then he said: “I am God’s sheep dog.”
As the Pope says, it's not MEANT for those who already truly believe. In that respect, "America" is the BEST place for this article. He is reaching those who are Catholics in name only, and who have sloughed off belief in a Church they believe is un-sophisticated.
I’m a big fan of Phil Lawler. And God bless him for putting the best possible spin on the situation. I’m just highly skeptical that this Pope’s approach, however well-intentioned, will be a successful strategy for the Church. By all accounts, the Buenos Aires diocese was hardly thriving during his tenure. Vocations to the priesthood declined. Mass attendance... abysmal. So, why should we believe that an approach that failed on a local level will succeed worldwide?
Well stated, Errant. The numbers who have learned to accept this luke-warm version of Catholicism are astoundingly large and probably growing; nevertheless, they’re still very much in error. Fortunately, when I receive my copies of Catholic Family News and The Remnant, I’m comforted in knowing that not all have gone off the reservation. John Vennari and Chris Ferrara are a blessing.
A wonderful analogy! Thank you for the post and ping.
> Unfortunately, Scripture doesn’t agree with him on those subjects,
I beg to differ. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_works for a list of references.
> As far as good works go, they show faith, they don’t accrue salvatory credits
It may be argued that while good works do not “accrue salvatory credits”, they are a necessary consequence of divine grace. Not doing good works can thus be viewed as evidence of insalvancy.
>> “IMO, it’s only a matter of time before the Almighty puts an end to the wholesale slaughter of these innocents.” <<
Without question, but he is also going to deal with all of the issues. He’ll do it by his own plan, and it will mean that billions who deserve his judgement will receive it eternally.
Let’s not pretend that we are going to win this one for him, and the victims are surely in his hands, and not suffering further.
>>it will mean that billions who deserve his judgement will receive it eternally.
Agree, I made the statement to give but one easy to understand reason (out of many) for a coming judgment, not so much for Freepers, but for any who would whine about a God who would punish. Many are blind today to such iniquities/atrocities, just as people were in ages past.
Certainly the Almighty will deal with all of the issues, and in accordance with the plan he laid out in the beginning.
Cart before the horse again, since we are not responsible for the good works done by us in faith, it is God working in and through us. The usual Catholic reliance on 'me'. God's work, not mine. Wiki is a poor source even when it uses the Bible for a reference.
NYer, I know you are a good Catholic, but this article is written in such denial.
There will be countless multitudes who will commit abortions and sins of homosexuality due to Catholic priests and other leaders the world over who talk about abortion, gay marriage, contraception less.
The father in the Prodigal Son story was merciful after the son asked for forgiveness. We should do the same, but we should not deemphasize the nature of these sins, which are very grave. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
Pope Francis was not talking about forgiving these people after they had repented. He was talking about how we should not ask these people to repent. Just the opposite of what Our Lord frequently said - “to repent and believe in the Gospel.”
Further in the interview, Pope Francis says you would not believe how many conservatives send messages to Rome, complaining about orthodoxy! So if a “conservative” objects to the GIRM not being followed, or some other illicit problem with the Mass or a Catholic priest or organization, we should not bother Rome??? How dare he!
Pope Francis should resign and become an Episcopalian. Maybe he can be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thanks for the ping to one of my favorite parables.
Yes, this Pope is making a lot of people uncomfortable, as well he should!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.