Skip to comments.Pope strongly defends Priestly Celibacy and Consecrated Virginity (Rorate Caeli)
Posted on 10/05/2013 5:29:52 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Family is the vocation that God wrote in the nature of man and woman, but there is another vocation, complementary to that of matrimony: the calling to celibacy and to virginity for the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the vocation that Jesus himself lived. How to recognize it? How to follow it?
I answer you with two essential elements on how to recognize this vocation to the priesthood or to consecrated life: praying and walking in the Church. These two things go together, they are intertwined. At the source of every vocation to the consecrated life there always is a strong experience of God, an experience that is not forgotten, that is remembered all through life! It is the one that Francis had. And we cannot estimate or program it. God always surprises us!
It is God who calls; but it is important to establish a daily relationship with Him, to listen to him in silence before the Tabernacle and in the intimacy of our own selves, to talk to him, to stay close to the Sacraments. Having this familiar relationship with the Lord is as it were to have open the window of our life, so that He may make his voice heard, what he wants from us.
I want to say one thing to you strongly, especially today: virginity for the Kingdom of God is not a "no", it is a "yes"! True, it includes renunciation to a marital bond and to one's own family, but at its foundation there is the "yes", as a response to the total "yes" of Christ for us, and this "yes" makes [us] fertile.
Franciscus Meeting with the young people of Umbria (Italian) October 4, 2013
Since learning that we are not to “parse” his words too closely, that he’s just “shooting the breeze” with us, not sure I care much what he has to say. I don’t usually pay much attention to folks “shooting the breeze,” except to be sociable. Like when I was in a bowling league. We all shot the breeze. But most of our conversation was pretty forgettable, and most of it was forgotten before we got home.
So it will be with Pope Franky.
You may be too perfect to listen to “Pope Franky,” but the rest of us aren’t. He’s saying some good things. Maybe you should try listening. This wasn’t “shooting the breeze.”
Well said. And the Church certainly needs more vocations—more young men praying and walking in church.
Far from being “too perfect,” I need folks to be clear with me, as I'm actually kinda dense. Here is what, apparently, his press spokesman said, as quoted in First Things:
“A new genre, Lombardi suggested, needs a ‘new hermeneutic,’ one in which we dont attach value so much to individual words as to the overall sense.”
I'm sorry, but if I don't have to attach value to the actual individual words, and may just divine on my own the “overall sense,” I'm pretty sure, dumb as I am, I can come up with any darned meaning with which I want to come up.
“Maybe you should try listening.”
I have listened. And what I've heard has ranged from “pretty nice,” to “mildly insightful,” to “plain old dumb,” to “incoherent,” to “factually wrong.”
But, now, of course, I understand! According to his press spokesman, “Francis is not so much aiming for precision as shooting the breeze.”
I've been doing it all wrong! I've been PAYING ATTENTION to the ACTUAL WORDS SPOKEN, rather than treating his words like others when folks are “just shooting the breeze,” which is to say, “Yeah, Franky, sounds good. Have another beer.” And then pick up my bowling ball and throw it down the lane.
This doesn't seem to me to be any way to run a railroad. But like I said, I'm just a dummy who prefers people to try to accurately communicate to me whatever it is they want to communicate. Unless they don't care whether I'm listening or not.
This must have been an impostor! Everybody knows Pope Francis would tell those young people about gay marriage, and women priests, and his plans to abolish the College of Cardinals. Just ask Ann Barnhardt!
So when he preaches heresy, he is just "talking off the cuff" and we should just ignore it. But when he says something you agree with, then everyone should listen?
You sound like a cafeteria Catholic to me.
My two favorite nicknames I've heard from some Conservatives for Francis is "Chaos Frank" or "Fbomb"
I am getting Papal fatigue. The Fog of Words has taken over. I am drifting.
Correction: This was not said by the Vatican press spokesman, but rather a characterization offered in defense of Pope Francis by the author of the First Things piece:
Francis is not so much aiming for precision as shooting the breeze.
“walking in church.”
Walking in the Spirit is what everyone needs.
My apologies, sitetest. I didn’t mean this as a criticism of you, but I have simply gotten tired of people reading mysterious messages into Francis’ words, and that was I think what Lombardi was saying.
However, I think the person who needs to go is Lombardi. He is and always has been a terrible press person. Navrro Valls was much better. Lombardi may be confused, he may not be permitted to do what he should...I really don’t know. In any case, whatever he’s doing, he’s not doing well.
However, Lombardi was right on this one. I think if you just read what Francis says, bearing in mind that it is said in the context of a very orthodox person who is taking for granted the fact that other believers listening to him are coming from the same place, you will be happy with him.
In other words, the Pope is not “giving a message” to anybody, liberal or conservative, but is simply expressing his Christ-based view of the universe. BXVI had the same view, but he was much more complex in expressing it while Francis is really very, very simple.
He’s had a big impact on a lot of marginal Catholics and even unbelievers that I know, not because they think he’s watering anything down, but because he seems so confident and welcoming and happy in the Faith.
I’ve become a Pope Francis agnostic. I don’t know if he is a great saintly pope, or a very bad pope. Only time will tell.
Until that time comes, for some of us peace of mind and personal sanity demand we ignore this Jesuit and all the spin on all sides.
“You may be too perfect to listen to Pope Franky, but the rest of us arent.”
Speak for yourself but not other Catholics whom you don’t know.
I'm sorry, I don't really see it. Obviously, whenever I read anything written or spoken by a pope, I assume it is in within the context of Catholic doctrinal belief. Why think otherwise? The guy's a CATHOLIC.
And some of the stuff that folks criticize is explicable in that context. There, my criticism is that I understand that this pope is trying to reach out “beyond the choir,” and that is the audience that has the least understanding of the Catholic context that you or I take for granted, and thus, by not supplying that context, readily confuses and misleads his audience. Which strikes me as a bad thing.
But some of the stuff is dopey or even indecipherable. The idea that the two biggest problems in the world are youth unemployment and the loneliness off old people just strikes me as silly talk.
But if, as has been suggested, he's just shooting the breeze, then much is explained. He's just opening his mouth and letting out whatever comes out. Just like me and my buddies at the bowling alley. Generally speaking, there's no harm done by me or my buddies. We often solve the world's problems, lol, but we don't take ourselves or what we say seriously. And we don't have it simultaneously published in a dozen Jesuit periodicals around the world. We're just not that narcissistic. But then again, none of us are bishops. What we say is soon forgotten, and should soon be forgotten. It's not serious talk.
And that is the only context that adequately explains this pope's public meanderings. The difference is, I suppose, is that although we, my friends and I, are not bishops, this fellow is.
I will continue to skim through what ol’ Franky has to say, to see if he ever starts getting serious. But for now, I think the best strategy is to understand that most/all of what he has to say should generally be ignored. Just like the folks in my bowling league.
rorate - “cause dew, drip, be moist”
caeli = “of heaven”
I was thinking maybe it should be orate = “pray” but this looks like a professional site....
rorate (from roro (1st conjugation)) is a rare word.
“Rorate caeli” are the opening words of Isaiah 45:8 in the Vulgate. The verse is “Rorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum.” (Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the Just One.) The text expresses the prophets’ longing for the coming of the Mwessiah, and is used very frequently in the Advent liturgy.
Ah yes, coeli (or caeli) can be masculine or neuter....
Progressives are saddened.
So someone gives you a picture of a human race that when young is idle and when old is lonely and you shrug it off as "silly talk"? I this it is a precise diagnosis of the spiritual condition of the neo-pagan world that we live in.
“So someone gives you a picture of a human race that when young is idle and when old is lonely and you shrug it off as 'silly talk'?”
That isn't what I said, now is it? I said calling these two things the two biggest problems in the world is silly talk.
But it's just the sort of thing my buddies at the bowling alley would say while shooting the breeze.
Right, this is where I disagree. The pope gave an accurate picture of the condition of our time, and you don’t think it is pointing out a big problem. You think it is silly talk.
Again, you badly misquote me. But I must employ the ’new hermeneutic,’ one in which we dont attach value so much to individual words as to the overall sense.”
Nonetheless, you've missed my overall sense, too.
I didn't say youth unemployment isn't a big problem, or that lonely old people isn't a big problem.
But the two biggest problems in the world??
At this point, I would ordinarily begin to delve into the reasons why these aren't Numbers 1 and 2 on the Global Big Problems Greatest Hits Chart, but I must remember to use the “new hermeneutic”! Would I criticize my buddy at the bowling alley for saying such a thing? Well, actually, yes I would. I hold my bowling alley buddies to a higher standard of "hermeneutics" than, apparently, we are to hold the pope. But that's all beside the point!
Under the “new hermeneutic” of Pope Franky (he DOES want to be casual about things), I shouldn't be so obsessed by the meanings of actual words.
Thus, I'd like to condition my statement that what the pope said in this case is “silly talk.” It would only be “silly talk” if we were to take seriously the meaning of the words spoken by the pope. Now that we've gone all PoMo, of course it's not “silly talk.” Or perhaps I should say, it's all “silly talk,” and thus, it really doesn't matter. I'm not sure about that. It may talke a while for me to get all this "new hermeneutic" down pat. Please be patient with me.
As long as you're getting all warm and fuzzy from it, that's all that matters.
Unless you don't like “warm and fuzzy” feelings, in which case, I guess you might be out of luck.
But hey, we're just all shooting the breeze, including the pope, so... It's All Good.
Again: I agree with His Holiness that unemployed youth and solitary old age are the biggest two problem in the world, and I explained why.
Please get lost with your “Franky”.
Um, no. It means that a Pope...a Catholic Pope should consider the biggest evils things that, I don’t know, are sins?
Are those things bad and should we care about them? Yes. But are they evils?
Oh, I forgot, he thinks the Church has been obsessing too much on real evils according to Catholic teaching like gay marriage and abortion.
This guy isn’t pope, he’s a Democrat.
The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.
That's right. The most serious of the evils.
You mean there are others who are too perfect? (Sitetest is not one of them, btw, I simply misunderstood his reply.)
People need to listen. Pope Francis has had a huge impact on many of the people in my parish and also on some of the clergy who I thought had become simple bureaucratic apparatchiks.
Of course, people will misinterpret him for political reasons. I know somebody who is using him to attack the Latin Mass, even though Francis said nothing of the sort...he just said that we shouldn’t sit around arguing about different types of the Mass when there are people out there dying for the Gospel message.
His recent Assisi homily and even impromptu talks were much more orthodox than anything that JPII ever said, particularly at Assisi.
I will admit that I didn’t like him at first either, but within a few days, I saw what an impact he was having, and that really changed my mind.
Orthodox? You’ve got to be kidding.
He’s the most modernist of the VII popes.
It’s not only Sitetest you misunderstand. You obviously misunderstand the current humanist Bishop of Rome (he hates to use the word “pope””).
He has no intent to convert anyone.
Proselytism is “solemn nonsense”.
Atheists can go to heaven as long as they follow there conscience; but get this, everyone as their own sense of good of evil!
Humble Jorge has forbidden a religious order, Franciscans of the Immaculate, from offering the TLM.
That had nothing to do with the TLM but was a problem within the order, which seems to have a dissident faction. For better or worse, I think Francis acts quickly.
He can always reconsider. Pope JPII didn’t intervene with the supposedly conservative Legionaries although he should have. BXVI got Maciel out immediately, but the damage had been done.
I think there was something else going on in that order.
Are you kidding???!!! It has everything to do with theTLM.
The Pope is a petty man. It’s like a father who tells his kids, “You’ve disobeyed me all week. As your punishment, I’m not taking you to Mass this Sunday.”
These are social consequences of sin. Right on. And abortion, homosexuality, left wing economics are consequences of idleness of the youth and fear of old age.
As of this post that I'm currently answering, you've made no argument to support your assertion (and the pope's assertion). You make an argument a few posts later, that I'll address in a subsequent post, but at this point, you haven't explained anything.
But, no matter, using the ’new hermeneutic, one in which we dont attach value so much to individual words as to the overall sense, we don't need no steenkin’ arguments! Whatever we assert is true! I'll follow my conscience to find what's good for me, you follow yours to find what's good for you, Pope Franky can follow his to find what's good for him, and we'll all hold hands and sing a little ditty by Haugen and Haas!
You really need to get with the program! “Problem,” “evil,” what's the difference? After all, the pope's spokesman has told us to use the new hermeneutic, one in which we dont attach value so much to individual words as to the overall sense.
Don't be so fussy over one little word!
Of course, if we were still taking the meanings of words seriously, you would be right. And, with either “problem” or “evil,” the assertion (devoid of any supporting arguments) that these are the two greatest problems or two greatest evils in the world, would be silly talk, if we were still taking the meanings of words seriously.
I guess that works in the “new hermeneutics,” since we can then ignore that in the United States, the legal regime of abortion on demand, and widespread use of that legal regime, came decades before any mass idleness of youth.
I could go on to point out further logical problems with your bare-bones argument, but why bother? The pope's communications are meant to be casual! This is the NEW genre of papal communications, “informal, spontaneous and sometimes entrusted to others in terms of its final articulation.” The pope is just shooting the breeze! “This isn't Denzinger, it's not canon law.”
So, why get so wrapped around the axle about categories like logic or causality or coherence? Or... truth?
1973 was decades before the Great Depression which started the leftist project in America? The idleness of youth has its roots in the destruction of farming lifestyle, is cast into law by mandatory 12 year education and produces masses of young citizens with plenty of hormones and hardly a dollar. That is what has driven America since the dawn of 20th century, as well as any other industrialized nation. His Holiness is outright prophetic in this statement.
If we weren't following the “new hermeneutics,” I might point out any of the myriad flaws in your tendentious “argument,” like, compulsory education laws were in place in all 50 states a decade and a half before the Great Depression, began in what is now the United States as early as the 17th century and public schooling was well under way by the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
I could also point out that abortion and homosexuality were issues that were sufficiently problematic that we see early Christians, from St. Paul to the writers of the Didache addressing them, long before the beginning of the demise of agrarian society, long before the rise of anything that we might meaningfully call “the leftist project.”
As well, even by your own argument, the real evil isn't mass idleness of youth, but the thing that caused it - “the destruction of farming lifestyle.”
But, why are we contending over this?? That's not the way of the “new hermeneutic”! No need to follow logic or reason. No need for following strict rules of causality. No need for actual, factual reporting of reality. No need for careful intellectual inspection and explication of hypotheses and theories. Just say whatever comes to mind, assert it as if it's true, and let someone else backfill the arguments later (no matter how ludicrously)! That's what the pope's spokesman has said:
“...informal, spontaneous and sometimes entrusted to others in terms of its final articulation.”
“People need to listen. Pope Francis has had a huge impact on many of the people in my parish and also on some of the clergy who I thought had become simple bureaucratic apparatchiks.”
I'd be surprised if at least a little of this didn't happen each time we have a new pope. How much of this sort of thing is just the normal reaction to a new pope, and how much is due to this particular pope is difficult to say.
“I will admit that I didnt like him at first either, but within a few days, I saw what an impact he was having, and that really changed my mind.”
I can't say I either like him much or dislike him much. I saw a thread posted today where the pope tells folks to “Listen to what God is telling you.” Well, gee, that's good stuff. It isn't anything I haven't heard a hundred times before, but we always need a reminder, and the pope expressed it in a meaningful way.
Last week or so, the pope said, You cannot know Jesus without having problems.”
As much as I hate to admit it (who likes having problems?), it's true! In fact, it struck me so much that I posted it on my FB page. Nonetheless, we all knew this. Jesus DID tell us that we have to pick up our crosses and follow Him.
I just think that a lot of times, he's just winging it. He's just shooting from the hip. In fact, his spokesman confirms this. And my fear is that, in spite of any initial enthusiasm for that sort of thing, this approach may end in tears all around.
But, he's only been pope for six months. I'll express for myself what I see, how it strikes me. I'll point out what I see as serious problems, and point out the things he does and says that speak to my own heart.
For now, I'm hesitant to form much of an opinion about what I think of him. I have some initial impressions, both good and bad, but hey, he's pope, and I have no idea what are God's designs behind this fellow's actions.
But white is not black and black is not white, even if the pope were to say so in an informal interview given to an atheist member of the press. When the pope says things that strike me as objectively in error or foolish, or too easy to misconstrue, or when he allows such things to be said in his name, I'll make mention of it.
But abortion and homosexuality according to CATHOLIC teaching are intrinsic evils, not unemployment or loneliness.
But this is the same argument you hear during election time.
Like I said, he’s a Democrat, not a Pope.
When will people stop defending the indefensible?
I never said the idleness of our youth developed overnight. It is you, remember, who made the argument that there was none of it in 1973.
abortion and homosexuality were issues that were sufficiently problematic
See above, and also note that with the youth unable to make a living sufficient to start a family till they are in their mid-20s, abortion and sexual permissiveness find mass demand that was not there before, when people got married at 16 and each child was an extra farmhand.
No need to follow logic or reason
Speak for yourself.
Nobody denies that. But each social evil has a social root. His Holiness pointed it out with precision, and it isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Sometimes, I have to work.
Your arguments, such as they are, don't rise to the level of being worthy of refutation. They're essentially unrelated ad hoc pieces of this and that strung together to backfill the purported remarks of Pope Franky.
But in light of the fact that we now know that the “interview” is essentially the reconstruction of a conversation by an 88 year-old atheist journalist relying on no notes, no recordings, no nothing, and in light of the fact that the pope's own spokesperson has stated that we shouldn't get hung up on the meanings of individual words, it may be that you've gone out on the metaphorical limb and sawed it off for a word that may or may not have been spoken.
Although the Vatican has vouched for the overall “gist” of the conversation, it is clear that they don't think it's necessary that each and every word of the “interview,” as reported, is actually accurate. Thus, “the” two “greatest” evils may have been more accurately rendered two “great” evils.
Who knows? I don't. Neither do you.
So, you're drinking the “defend every word the pope utters, even though the pope is unwilling to do so, himself” kool aid in vain.
And remember, the pope was just shooting the breeze!
Of course, most folks don't think their bull sessions are worthy of international notice, but the pope did say that most clergy are narcissists. I agree with him.
I simply don’t like His Holiness insulted, especially by people who should know better. I did not know where the “youth unemployment and elderly loneliness” quote or paraphrase come from, but I think it is essentially good analysis. Maybe the Pope said something else that was outrageous, I don’t know, but this particular line is quite solid analysis of the social roots of evil, and I explained why.
So it came from the conversation with that atheist. I think, on that matter, that what people do not understand that the Pope was evangelizing someone who came to him. That the Pope couched his phrasing in a way that was building a bridge to the secular world is even more fitting if that was the context. It is, of course, a coarse misunderstanding of what was going on to think of it as an “interview” and then ask for a transcript. This has nothing to do with “shooting the breeze” or “new hermeneutics”, it is an evangelizing outreach.