Posted on 10/05/2013 6:21:52 AM PDT by marshmallow
Russell Moore says the pope’s latest interview in an Italian newspaper “is more than just confusing. It’s 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 nation’s second-largest faith group behind Catholicism, criticized the pope’s 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 church’s 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 Augustine’s 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 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
Pope
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.
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.