Skip to comments.Baptist Leader Says Pope Soft on Sin
Posted on 10/05/2013 6:21:52 AM PDT by marshmallow
Russell Moore says the popes latest interview in an Italian newspaper is more than just confusing. Its a theological wreck.
The head of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission says Pope Francis is soft on sin.
Russell Moore, president of the moral-concerns agency for the nations second-largest faith group behind Catholicism, criticized the popes comments published in la Repubblica, the largest Italian daily general-interest newspaper.
Responding to a question about whether there is a single vision of good and, if so, who decides, the pontiff replied: Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good."
Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them, the pope continued. That would be enough to make the world a better place."
Francis said the churchs mission is not to proselytize but to identify the material and immaterial needs of the people and try to meet them as we can.
"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense, he said. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us . The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the good.
In an Oct. 1 posting on the ELRC website, Moore said Pope Francis makes the mistake of severing the love of God from the holiness of God.
From Augustines Confessions to Well, everyone has his own ideas about good and bad is a mighty long path, Moore said. If Pope Francis wishes to reclaim the primacy of the gospel, he must simultaneously speak with kindness to........
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
The new Pope is a nut. The previous two popes were consistently conservative and pro-life and pro-marriage.
counting down until apologists claim Pope Francis is “misquoted”: 10, 9, 8....
I respectfully disagree that he is "a nut." Why would those cardinals elect a man who's a nut? I also don't think that he is soft on sin...soft on sinners, but not on sin.
Actually, I think he has a point. So there.
You are kidding right. They have picked a variety of molesters, murderers, thieves and degenerates throughout Catholic church history. I would not trust a conclave of repressed homosexuals to elect a dog catcher, let alone a leader of the largest denomination of the Christian church .
You can’t talk mean to your parishioners. They might leave the church or quit religion altogether. Seems like that’s the world we live in.
A one panel comic appeared in The New Yorker after Vatican II, showing two great doors of the Vatican, and two unhappy looking cardinals watching a devil walk through the doors carrying a sheaf of papers.
One cardinal saying to the other: "Personally, I think this ecumenism has gone too far."
You will find yourself anathema for defending His Holiness. I happen to agree with you too! So double there. :o)
ALL of “Organized Religion” is “soft” on SIN!
And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, This man receives sinners and eats with them.
This is not about whom he’s eating with. This is what he is teaching. The whole purpose of the Petrine office is to uphold the doctrine of the faith.
Christ had hard words for the actions of the Pharisees but he also told people to observe what they taught because they occupied the seat of Moses.
He is not consistent or coherent. One day he says something liberal and is lavishly praised by liberals. Then he says something conservative in a failed attempt to make up for it. He engages in lengthy interviews and wanders all over the place.
He is a nut in a political or theological sense, if not neurologically. He actually called evangelizing “solemn nonsense”! Who knows what he will say next?
You know the Catholic Church is in trouble when a Baptist call out is on the money.
What concerns me are the phrases “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. . .”
Are “good” and “evil” what WE conceive them to be?
And, this one, “The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the good.”
But, I thought the “good” was whatever WE conceive it to be, right?
Look, I’ll be upfront - I’m a Baptist, but I certainly do not hate Catholics or this Pope. I appreciate that the Catholic church has preserved many of the Greek/Hebrew texts of the Scriptures. I respect their pro-life position and how they have never wavered from it. But, in this day and age of moral and religious relativism and pluralism, I think sending out “fuzzy” statements only contributes not only to confusion, but to a false sense of security with God for the unbeliever.
A non-Christian hearing those statements would probably think the Pope is saying, “hey, whatever you think is right is right, whatever YOU think is wrong is wrong - God will accept that”.
Now, maybe that’s NOT what the Pope means, but it sure sounds like that is what he is saying.
I don’t condemn anyone, that’s God’s prerogative, but we are to “test” the spirits, test and discern, and yes, judge right and wrong according to God’s standards, not ours.
I was raised baptist. This guy shouldn’t be casting stones, but sadly they’re really good at that.
“Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them,
Classic moral relativism, unless “he” is capitalized referring to God. The last two popes spoke against this nonsense.
More and more, this guy seems to be fulfilling the prophecy of the last pope. I know this is sad commentary coming from a Catholic convert.
Probably so HE doesn't become a back-sliding Baptist...
The Pope isn’t saying anything new.
He’s not saying that good and evil are what we think they are. He’s saying that each man is obliged to pursue the good as he understands it.
The Pope’s statement is not moral relativism. Read it again.
“Protestant Padre Disagrees With Pope”
Who’d a thunk it.....
I love you Pope Francis but you are as wrong as you can be on this one. Certain Muslims think that it is good and Allah's will to kill innocent people that they perceive as "infidels". That is their good and it most assuredly does NOT make the world a better place. There is evil and there is good and you should know the difference Your Holiness. It is not what someone's IDEA of good is. That is what the holy mother Church is for, to lead souls to Christ and what is good.
You were a member of the Southern Baptist denomination?
Moral relativism does not match with the job of
Everything happening to the Roman Catholic Church subsequent to the ill-conceived and translated Vatican II has been a catastrophe!
Liturgy, tenets, theology and everything that was germane and good about the Church was tossed out the window. Those popes following Pius XII were wholly complicit in establishing a new modernist religion. They stated that change (ala Obama) was necessary to bring the Church up-to-date so it would fit into the new century.
Apparently they believe that Jesus Christ and God have changed and are running about heaven in Nikes!
The new religion is a one-way ticket to the kingdom of Satan!
The problem is a CATHOLIC pope shouldn’t be telling everyone is obligated to pursue the good as he understands it. He should be telling everyone to pursue the truth of the , wait for it, the CATHOLIC Faith.
Agreed 100%. We have yet to see the “fruits” of this new, modernist religion. Can’t wait to see what Francis has up his sleeves. He’s only been at this for 6 months.
Lord, have mercy.
Everyone, at all times and places, is obligated to pursue the good as he understands it.
The CORRECT understanding of what is good is taught by the Catholic Church.
I really don’t see any difference between what the Pope is saying and what Oprah says.
Yes, but we never hear Francis (or any conciliar pope) make that clear.
I doubt that that’s true. Have you read EVERYTHING Ratzinger has ever written?
The “conscience” abusers really had a field day in the decades after Humanae Vitae. They constantly misstated the meaning of the word “conscience” in a way that simply gutted the Church’s authority to teach ANYTHING.
They repeated, endlessly, the truth that each married couple must “follow their conscience.” But they repeated it in isolation. They NEVER reaffirmed the truth that, if a married couple believe it is not sinful to use birth control, they are WRONG.
The fact that it is true that each married couple must follow their conscience doesn’t alter the fact that, if they call themselves Catholic, they must follow the teaching of the Church. If they believe the Church teaches falsehood, they are not Catholics.
With doctrine tossed out the window, everything is permitted. The Church is very “democratic” now. Catholicism is up for a vote. The new Pope is quite popular among Catholics, both church-going and lapsed. That will encourage him to continue his same mindless course.
At best, his statement that I have referenced, is ambiguous. I’m not referring to other statements that he has made, just this one.
Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them,
I fully understand that people have their own view of good and evil, however, in this sentence when the pope refers to “he” the pope is referring to the individual’s conception of evil. If an individual can conceive or determine what is evil, then an individual can determine, conceive or rationalize which actions and thoughts are evil.
So for example, I might think that the act of homosexuality is evil and you might not or vice versa. But if I have the ability to “conceive” that an act is evil or not, I have made a moral determination and that’s moral relativism.
I do think that this pope good person, but it does seem that he lacks clarity, and certainly does not possess the high level of intellectual vigor that the last two popes had. I think you would have to admit at least, that this statement is ambiguous and unfortunately this is the type of thing that will lead to confusion and dissension among the flock.
We are in complete agreement!
...and Christ have mercy.
Thank the Good God for creating a sedavacantist movement where one can truly worship in the way that served practical practicing Catholics for centuries.
You are hanging to much on the single word “conceives.” The Pope means by that, “thinks,” or “judges.” Which is the function of the intellect. Which is also called the “conscience.” (A word I wish had never been invented.
If a man thinks or judges that sodomy is not evil, then he has no obligation to refrain from practicing it. He does not sin when he practices it. He WILL suffer lots of negative consequences, but sin is not one of them.
A relativist would say that, because of the man’s judgment, sodomy “for him” (a meaningless expression) is not wrong or evil. A relativistic priest would say that, in such a situation, the man can practice sodomy AND be a practicing Catholic.
A non-relativistic priest would say that the man can practice sodomy without moral culpability, but he would not tell the man he can at the same time be a practicing Catholic. Moral culpability is dependent on one’s sincere judgments, and one’s sincere judgments MUST be followed, whether they are objectively right or wrong. Being a practicing Catholic is an objective situation knowable by objective criteria.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl and most bishops in the U.S., by refusing to obey Canon 915 (i.e., they refuse to deny Communion to pro-abortion activists), teach that a person can be a pro-abortion activist AND be morally blameless, AND be a practicing Catholic. Their teaching is loud and clear: promoting abortion is not a sin. They are true relativists. Actually, they are lawless.
I personally, think the Pope has been careless in his speech on many occasions. But your position seems to be that he is deliberately teaching fundamental error. And your primary “evidence” is the way he used the word “conceive.” I think you are unfairly insisting on a non-existent distinction between “conceiving” and “thinking” or “judging.” You haven’t convinced me that he has knowingly taught relativism.
The way is narrow and 1 billion is not narrow.
No stones...just want everyone to know the truth and be filled with the Spirit.
Anti-Catholicism, not anti-catholic.
Neither are led by the Holy Spirit.
Yep. Stones. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Don’t brush everyone with the same broad strokes.....some of us would just like to see others born again and Spirit filled. We want that for all.
I sleep fine at night.
Perhaps one day you can tell me why so against believers. I was once in need of hearing the Gospel and God made sure I did. Why would we then not want to tell others?
“You are hanging to much on the single word conceives’”
Wow, you’ve really strayed off topic. I didn’t say “conceives”, the pope did. He unwittingly introduced unnecessary confusion at the very least through his choice of words. I don’t see how you can deny that the pope lacks the same type of clarity that we have come to expect with his predecessors. You can’t maintain that the pope has been clear, because if he had been clear, we would not have had this controversy.
As to whether he pope is deliberately engaging in false teaching, I would agree that he is probably not. And of course, the pope is human, and too err is human. But he is the pope, not a pundit, and we should expect better.
I can tell you one thing. If this pope make doctrinal statements on theology that rise to the level of dogmatic infallibility, he better have some experts on theology and grammar looking over his shoulder. That will make your job as unwavering papal apologist much easier.
I didn’t say that the Pope didn’t say “conceives.” I said that your presumed sharp distinction between the meaning of “conceives” and “thinks” was baseless.
My point was that the Pope didn’t say anything new, and that his use of the word “conceives” doesn’t introduce anything new.
The Church and all moral theologians have always held that no one is culpable if he obeys his sincere judgment about what is right and wrong.
I don’t know who you think you are talking to, but “unwavering Papal apologist”? Have you read my posts? Did you even read my post to YOU?