What The Pope Doesn't Know

Creative Minority Report ^ | December 26, 2013 | Patrick Archbold

[NYer]

I found this amazing. Somebody sent Father Z. a translation of an interview with Cardinal Meisner.

In it, Cardinal Meisner relays how he directly asked the Pope about his teaching style using interview and short speeches with remarks that need further explanation. Cardinal Meisner relays that the Pope got 'big eyes' and asked for an example.

“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

As noted by Father Z., the Pope doesn't seem aware of the chaos that followed some of those remarks and the way they were taken by those who are not loyal sons of the Church.

It seems that the Pope takes for granted a deeper understanding of Catholic teaching as the necessary context of his remarks. But many of those in his audience do not have such context and predisposed to reject Church teaching. In short, the Pope doesn't know his audience well.

Further, if the Pope doesn't know his audience, he likely does not know the effect on those Catholics in the trenches who try everyday to bring the truth part of mercy to those who reject such truth.

At the end, I am thankful that the Pope does not intend such things. Hopefully now that it has been brought to his attention, he will include the full truth with mercy in his future answers so as not to be misunderstood.

[NYer]

Ping!

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

The Pope should exclaim at the top of his lungs the glory of free market capitalism. No other system known to man has uplifted more people from the bondage of slavery and poverty than capitalism.

[Bayard]

No pope would exclaim the glory of an economic system. The only glory in these systems are the people who act in good faith because of the merits of Jesus Christ. It is Jesus who frees men from slavery, not “a system.”

[88keys]

Very interesting...to re-phrase, is the article saying that the Pope is perhaps naive in regard to how his communications are interpreted? Not that being "sophisticated" is so ideal, but certainly some of his remarks and "teachings" have been highly regarded and acclaimed by various left-wingers, particularly regarding matters of capitalism, homosexuality, and probably various other tenets and morays I haven't heard about yet!

What he really meant is not so helpful after the fact if his words are misunderstood, not understood, or interpreted wrongly or maliciously. He seems a good man, so let's hope he duly considers this potential problem and improves upon his "teaching & preaching" skills! He is so highly regarded and could certainly be a good influence on the world, including on non-Catholics...

[Lakeshark]

Yes, but you can still pay the church for an annulment that makes it okay to get communion after you divorce, then you can remarry and take communion.

Sorry, that's flat out hypocritical nonsense, a gerrymandering of reality.

[Salvation]

**Hopefully now that it has been brought to his attention, he will include the full truth with mercy in his future answers so as not to be misunderstood.**

I read this when it was linked somewhere else. Explains a lot.

[Salvation]

** that’s flat out hypocritical nonsense, a gerrymandering of reality.**

And how do you know this? Are you the interviewer here?

[Dr. Sivana]

Yes, but you can still pay the church for an annulment that makes it okay to get communion after you divorce, then you can remarry and take communion.

Not always true. I know of several cases where the money was spent on the case, and the annulment was NOT granted. In fact, that was the result of a manority attempted annulments among people I know. And I know many more cases where the parties didn't even attempt annulment because they knew they were married, but must separate (physical abuse).

[Nifster]

He seems like a jesuit to me….

[jacknhoo]

It seems to me that what Cardinal Meisner was trying to say is that the Pope's critics are ignorant of church teaching and that if they are that ignorant, then, of course, there will be misunderstandings and attacks, both within and without the Catholic Church. It is as if everyone expects the Pope to rewrite and restate all the Catholic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture in every single his authoritative public statements and interviews.

Is that the Pope's problem, or his critics, is the question.

I think the answer lies in the same place as the answer to the question, who is in submission of mind and will to the Church and who is not and, hence, essentially taken themselves out of the Church?

It is always disappointing to see so many ready and willing to participate in the undermining and disobedience, due to their own pride and willful ignorance.

[Salvation]

Like all these Jesuits? Many of them saints.

[Repent and Believe]

“...pay the church for an annulment “
This reply is not to defend the pope in the subject critical content, but to address your comment. You perhaps do not understand the definition of “annulment”. An annulment doesn’t allow people to remarry. All it does is make official record that a discovery has been made that a marriage between the two concerned parties never legitimately took place. (This is consistent with Jesus’ words that (paraphrased) “What God has joined let no man divide.”) And until a serious investigation is made, which can require numerous resources, such discovery is not possible, and the Church therefor assumes that the marriage truly exists based upon prior readily observed evidence.
(Just as a defendant doesn’t buy justice from his lawyer, neither does one buy an annulment; they must however pay for services toward discovery. More can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for your interest in these matters!

[Iscool]

All it does is make official record that a discovery has been made that a marriage between the two concerned parties never legitimately took place. (This is consistent with Jesus’ words that (paraphrased) “What God has joined let no man divide.”) And until a serious investigation is made, which can require numerous resources, such discovery is not possible, and the Church therefor assumes that the marriage truly exists based upon prior readily observed evidence.

So then there are tons of marriages out there that are illegitimate...Just not recognized by anyone, even the particpants...Married people living and reproducing in sin , sanctioned by your religion but don't know the difference

You can't pervert and bend and twist the scriptures enough to justify 'Catholic anullment'...

[Dr. Sivana]

Paid. Granted. Sorry guys, this is total bs,

Do you know what an annulment is?!

It is a declaration that a valid, sacramental marriage never took place.

It has nothing to do with who is in the "right" or "wrong".

If you marry someone who is insane at the time of marriage, that can be declared annulled.

If you marry someone who is already under the bond of a sacramental marriage, that is fit to be declared null and void.

If one or both of the parties have an explicit intention to consistently use artificial means to avoid having children, no sacramental marriage takes place (one reason why there are more annulments these days.)

There are more (degrees of consanguinity, failure to consummate, etc.)

All of these things have to do with the state of the putative spouses at the time of the exchange of vows.

On the other hand, if a couple marry, and two years later they hit their heads in a car accident and he becomes Atila the Hun or she becomes Lizzy Borden, they are still married. There could be good reason for legal separation, but the bond remains.

You don't have to like it, and abuses by tribunals/bishops do happen. Also, if someone is willing to lie under oath, errors can be made, just like in our legal system. In the infamous Rausch-Kennedy case, a bad granting of annulment took place, and Sheila Rausch-Kennedy repealed and got the annulment overturned.

I am not sure what system you think is superior, but you are free to set up your own religion and institute it, if you like.

[RitaOK]

I really appreciate your reply to LS, in your better explanation of the word “annulment”.

An applicant’s cash exchange has nothing to do with the outcome itself. The cash simply funds the investigation of the matter, which is no small undertaking given the time and resources and manpower engaged.

The “trimmings” involved in a beautiful wedding with a pastor and the civil pledges exchanged usually make a marriage legitimate in civil society, but it is different in the Catholic Church. While the trimmings and pledges between two people meet the requirements of civil law there is more required to meet the requirements of a sacrament in the Church. The “trimmings” have never entirely defined a Sacrament.

Rather, in the Catholic Church, it is accepted properly only as the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, with additional and altogether unique characteristics from a civil “marriage ceremony”.

This confuses anyone unfamiliar with the CCC.

Thanks,
Rita

[CTrent1564]

Iscool:

You do not understand the annulment so why, rather than comment, don’t you investigate what it is. The Catholic Church does not recognize a civil marriage as a “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony”. In other words, a Catholic, and I can speak to this myself, to be married “sacramentally” needs to have the marriage ceremony celebrated in connection with the Church, which as Scripture says is the “Body and Bride of Christ”. My wife and I had to also have a wedding license recognized by the “State” for legal reasons [property, taxes, power of attorney, etc, etc]. Those are related but distinct. So had I gotten married by the local judge or justice of the peace, while I would be legally married in the eyes of the state, I would not be married in the context of the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony”

So when a Catholic gets a “Legal divorce”, the Catholic Church, as the Body of Christ, does not let the “secular State” break up a marriage and thus the Church does not turn around and say, well because the “State says you are no longer Legally wed, you are also no longer sacramentally wed”

I find it interesting that someone like you who strives to maintain biblical standards would allow the “Secular State” dictate what is and what is not a “Christian Marriage” . Let Caesar render to Caesar and render to God what is God.

I have my wedding license with the State because of the legal requirements and tax laws require it and I am a citizen that should follow “lawful rules of society” at the same time, as a Catholic, m wedding took place inside a Catholic Church with a Catholic Priest as the Official of the Wedding, not some “State secular judge or Justice of the Peace”

In this context, an Annulment is a process that investigates whether a “True Sacrament took place” and realize under Catholic Theology, the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the Man and Woman, so if one of the parties did not when they entered into marriage, was freely deciding to enter into a union and never had the intent to truly remain faithful to their spouse, it is therefore possible that the Sacrament was null and void. A man can’t say, I promise to remain faithful to his bride to be as long as she stays thin and keeps a figure that he is attracted to. So if said man sort of let his buddies know that was his true intent, and lets say after a few kids, his wife put on 15 or 20 extra pounds, and he leaves her for the young secretary, it is possible that the sacrament was null and void.

However, the kids born of that union are not bastards as that is a legal term from English Common law that gave legitimate rights of inheritance to those born in the context of the marriage.

The kids of a man, born in marriage or out of wedlock are still his kids and moral responsibility period. Annulment or not.

[Lakeshark]

Really?

You grant an annulment to a party who ruined their marriage, lied, cheated, and stole ten years from a woman's life, and you defend it......a lot like the Kennedies, lie, steal cheat, pay for your own clergymen, grant them annulments.......

Lord preserve us from the insanity of this so called doctrine of the church.

Great defense of the indefensible by the way.......

[Lakeshark]

I have a great appreciation of the RC church, but frankly this is not their finest teaching, no explanation is good enough for the hypocrisy that has historically been involved with this doctrine.