Pope Francis’ general audience in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican, Aug. 25, 2021. / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
Vatican City, Aug 25, 2021 / 03:55 am (CNA).
Pope Francis said on Wednesday that hypocrisy within the Church is “particularly detestable.”
Speaking at the general audience in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall on Aug. 25, the pope underlined that hypocritical behavior damaged Church unity.
“Hypocrisy in the Church is particularly detestable, and unfortunately there is hypocrisy in the Church, and there are many hypocritical Christians and ministers. We should never forget the Lord’s words: ‘Let what you say be simply Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil,’” he said, quoting Matthew 5:37.
“Brothers and sisters, today, let us think about the hypocrisy that Paul condemns, and that Jesus condemns: hypocrisy. And let us not be afraid to be truthful, to speak the truth, to hear the truth, to conform ourselves to the truth, so we can love. A hypocrite does not know how to love.”
“To act otherwise means jeopardizing the unity of the Church, that unity for which the Lord Himself prayed.”
null / Vatican Media.
The pope’s live-streamed address, dedicated to the theme “The dangers of the Law,” was the sixth in his cycle of catechesis on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.
The pope reflected on Galatians 2:11-14, in which Paul recalls that he rebuked St. Peter for ceasing to eat with gentiles for fear of conflict with strict Jewish Christians, who stressed that Jews were prohibited from eating with non-Jews under Mosaic Law.
null / Vatican Media.
“First, Peter had been eating with the Christians of pagan origin without any difficulty; however, when some circumcised Christians from Jerusalem arrived in the city, he then no longer did so, because he did not want to incur their criticism,” the pope said.
“That’s the mistake: he was more focused on criticism, on making a good impression. And this is serious in Paul’s eyes, because other disciples imitated Peter, especially Barnabas, who with Paul had even evangelized the Galatians.”
null / Vatican Media.
Pope Francis said that, without intending to, Peter was creating “an unjust division” within the community.
Addressing pilgrims who were seated in the hall and wearing face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the pope said that Paul was, in essence, accusing Peter of hypocrisy.
null / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
He suggested that hypocrisy could be defined as “the fear of the truth.”
“In an environment where interpersonal relations are lived under the banner of formalism, the virus of hypocrisy easily spreads,” he said.
He noted that hypocrisy is frequently condemned in the Bible. He highlighted the example of Eleazar, an elderly Jewish man who refused to save his life by eating meat sacrificed to pagan deities.
null / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
Quoting from the Second Book of Maccabees, the pope said that Eleazar had refused because the younger generation would conclude that he had “gone over to an alien religion” and be led astray.
null / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
“What a beautiful episode to reflect on to distance ourselves from hypocrisy,” the pope remarked. “The Gospels, too, report several situations in which Jesus strongly reproaches those who appear just externally, but who internally are filled with falsity and iniquity.”
He encouraged pilgrims to read the 23rd chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel and note how many times Jesus refers to “hypocrites.”
He added that hypocrites are people who “pretend, flatter, and deceive” because they lack the courage to face the truth.
“For this reason, they are not capable of truly loving — a hypocrite does not know how to love — they limit themselves to living out of egoism and do not have the strength to show their hearts transparently,” he said.
“There are many situations in which hypocrisy is at work. It is often hidden in the workplace where someone appears to be friends with their colleagues while, at the same time, stabbing them in the back due to competition. In politics, it is not unusual to find hypocrites who live one way in public and another way in private.”
null / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
After the address, a precis of the pope’s catechesis was read out in seven languages.
In his remarks to Polish-speaking pilgrims, the pope noted that Aug. 26 is the feast day of Our Lady of Częstochowa, who is venerated at the Jasna Góra Monastery in southern Poland.
He recalled that in 2016, during World Youth Day in Kraków, he visited the icon also known as the Black Madonna of Częstochowa.
“Five years ago, I was able to stand with young people before her black countenance and entrust to her the Church in Poland and the world,” he said.
“May her maternal protection be for you, your families, and all Poles a source of peace and every good. I bless you from my heart.”
null / Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
He then sent his best wishes to athletes taking part in the Paralympic Games in Japan from Aug. 24 to Sept. 5.
“Yesterday, the Paralympics began in Tokyo. I send my greetings to the athletes and I thank them because they offer everyone a testimony of hope and courage. They, in fact, show how sporting efforts help to overcome seemingly insurmountable difficulties,” he said.
The pope also greeted Catholics from Montegallo, a commune in central Italy that was struck by an earthquake on Aug. 24, 2016.
“Dear brothers and sisters, your presence gives me the opportunity to turn my thoughts to the victims and to the communities of central Italy, including Accumoli and Amatrice, which have suffered the harsh consequences of that seismic event,” he said.
“With the concrete help of the institutions, it is necessary to give proof of ‘rebirth’ without letting distrust get in the way. I urge everyone to move forward with hope. Courage!”
The general audience ended with the recitation of the Our Father and the Apostolic Blessing.
After the audience, the pope stood up to greet individual bishops and priests, before being guided down the steps of the auditorium.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope Francis speaks at the opening of the World Meeting of Families in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall, June 22, 2022. / Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
Vatican City, Jun 22, 2022 / 12:10 pm (CNA).
Pope Francis said Wednesday that Catholic marriage is a gift, not just a formality or rule.
“Marriage is not a formality to be fulfilled. You don’t get married to be Catholic ‘with the label,’ to obey a rule, or because the Church says so, or to throw a party,” the pope said at the opening event of the World Meeting of Families on June 22.
“You get married,” he continued, “because you want to base your marriage on the love of Christ, which is as firm as a rock.”
“We can say that when a man and a woman fall in love, God offers them a gift: marriage. A wonderful gift, which has in it the power of divine love: strong, enduring, faithful, able to recover after any failure or fragility,” Francis said.
The World Meeting of Families 2022 opened with a Festival of Families in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall. The event featured a performance by Italian operatic rock trio Il Volo.
Pope Francis and around 2,000 families from around the world also listened to the testimonies of married couples and individuals with stories of overcoming incredible challenges or of serving others.
The 10th edition of the World Meeting of Families, which ends on June 26, includes three days of talks from lay Catholics on subjects related to marriage and the family. Mass and Eucharistic adoration are also on the schedule.
Pope Francis told families: “In marriage Christ gives himself to you, so that you have the strength to give yourselves to each other.”
“Take courage, then, family life is not an impossible mission,” he added. “With the grace of the sacrament, God makes it a wonderful journey to be taken together with him, never alone.”
“Family is not a beautiful ideal, unattainable in reality. God guarantees his presence in marriage and family, not only on your wedding day but throughout your life. And he sustains you every day in your journey,” Francis said.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dec 2, 2017 / 03:34 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Speaking to youth in Bangladesh, Pope Francis said he is always rejuvenated by young people, and encouraged them to never lose their sense of enthusiasm and adventure for life, even when things are hard.
He also stressed the importance of clinging to God and his wisdom, using it as a guide to help them avoid the world’s false promises, and to go out of themselves in order to grow in faith and solidarity.
“There is something unique about young people: you are always full of enthusiasm, and I feel rejuvenated whenever I meet with you,” the Pope said Dec. 2.
In his prepared remarks, Francis said this youthful enthusiasm “is linked to a spirit of adventure,”and pointed to Bangladeshi poet Kazi Nazrul Islam, who called the nation’s youth “fearless.”
Young people, he said, “are always ready to move forward, to make things happen and to take risks. I encourage you to keep moving with this enthusiasm in the good times and the bad times.”
No matter what, he told them to “keep moving, especially in those moments when you feel weighed down by problems and sadness, and when you look out and God seems to be nowhere on the horizon.”
However, he also stressed the importance of making sure they are moving forward on the right path, which means “journeying” through life, rather than “wandering aimlessly.”
“Our life is not without direction, it has a purpose given to us by God. He guides and directs us with his grace,” the Pope said, explaining that this direction is like “a computer software” God has placed within us that “helps us to discern his divine program and, in freedom, to respond.”
But like all software, this too “needs constantly to be updated,” he said, and told the youths to “keep updating your program, by listening to God and accepting the challenge of doing his will.”
Pop Francis spoke to youth in Dhaka on the last day of his Nov. 27-30 visit to south Asia, which included stops in both Burma and Bangladesh.
His visit to both countries concluded with meetings with youth, which is a decision Vatican spokesman Greg Burke previously said the Pope made intentionally in order to show that they are an essential part of the Church, and that in each country, it is “a young Church with hope.”
Before arriving to Notre Dame College for his encounter with the youth of Bangladesh, the Pope visited the Missionaries of Charity’s “Mother Teresa House” for orphans and disabled people, and had an audience with the country’s priests and religious.
Dhaka’s Notre Dame college was founded in 1949 by the Congregation of the Holy Cross, and in 1954 it was opened to students from all religious confessions.
When he arrived Pope Francis was greeted by Bishop Gervas Rozario, Vice President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Bangladesh. He then listened to two testimonies from young people, the first being student Upasana Ruth Gomez, who spoke about the struggle to stay hopeful in the face of oppression and injustice. The second testimony was from Anthony Toranga Nokrek, who spoke about the need to stay focused in order to be open to and welcome God’s message to them.
In his speech, Pope Francis pointed to how Anthony had said that youth are now “growing up in a fragile world that cries out for wisdom.”
This word, he said, is key, because “once you move from ‘journeying’ to ‘wandering aimlessly,’ all wisdom is lost! The one thing that directs and guides us on to the right path is wisdom, the wisdom born of faith.”
Francis stressed that this “is not the false wisdom of this world,” and to attain it, “we have to look at the world, our situations, our problems, everything, with the eyes of God.”
When we look at the world with the eyes and wisdom of God, we are also able to recognize and reject the false forms of happiness the world offers, he said, adding that “a culture that makes these false promises cannot deliver.”
“It only leads to a self-centredness that fills the heart with darkness and bitterness,” whereas the wisdom of God “helps us to know how to welcome and accept those who act and think differently than ourselves.”
Pope Francis said it’s sad when we start to “shut ourselves up in our little world and become inward-looking,” living by the “my way or the highway” principle.
By doing this, “we become trapped, self-enclosed,” he said, explaining that when an entire people, religion or society does this, turning into “a little world,” they lose the best part of themselves and “plunge into a self-righteous mentality of ‘I am good and you are bad.’”
God’s wisdom, however, “opens us up to others. It helps us to look beyond our personal comforts and the false securities which blind us to those grand ideals which make life more beautiful and worthwhile.”
The Pope then noted how the crowd wasn’t just made up of Catholics, but that many Muslims and youth from other religions were also present. This fact, he said, is a visible sign of their determination “to foster an environment of harmony, of reaching out to others, regardless of your religious differences.”
He recalled an experience working with students in Buenos Aires who were building rooms for a new parish in a poor neighborhood. They all came from different backgrounds and held different beliefs, but, “they were all working for the common good.”
Despite their different backgrounds, these students “were open to social friendship and were determined to say no to anything that would detract from their ability to come together and to help one another.”
As he often does, the Pope then emphasized the importance of interacting with the elderly, who he said help us “to appreciate the continuity of generations.”
Elderly, he said, have the wisdom to help us avoid repeating past mistakes, and have the “charism of bridging the gap,” meaning they are sure to pass on the most important values to their children and grandchildren.
Francis said the elderly also help us to realize that history didn’t begin with us, and that we are part of something much bigger than we are, so “keep talking to your parents and grandparents. Do not spend the whole day playing with your phone and ignoring the world around you!”
He closed his speech noting how both Anthony and Upasana had ended their testimonies with an expression of hope for the future.
The wisdom of God “reinforces the hope in us and helps us to face the future with courage,” he said, noting that Christians find this wisdom in a personal encounter with Jesus in prayer, in the sacraments, and in service to the poor, sick, suffering and abandoned.
“In Jesus we discover the solidarity of God, who constantly walks by our side,” he said, and told the youth that he is “filled with joy and hope” when he looks at their faces.
He prayed that God’s wisdom would “continue to inspire your efforts to grow in love, fraternity and goodness,” and voiced his hope that they would continue to grow in love of God and neighbor, telling them “please, do not forget to pray for me!”
I’ve learned over the last 9 yrs. to not eat anything before reading most comments from this anti-pope imposter. Oh no, Father James is not a hypocrite, (Promote him) neither Cardinal Marx as he and his non-hypocrites send the Church into schism. These remarks were aimed at the Catholic faithful who insist on the truth of the Magisterium. God help us.
There he goes again. Like Barry, I need no pay for no weight loss plan. I need not listen to comedians either. Although I don’t think the Pope intends to humor us, the audacity and blind irony, are so ludicrous, I laugh. Then cry, then start my ‘counting’ beads and ejaculations to the good Lord for endurance and consolation.
Francis may wish to learn what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about Paul confronting Cephas:
“Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.”
IOW, we the little laity, should have no fear to correct those under whom we are subject. We in our weakness, may, in our zeal, call upon the power and strength of Christ, made perfect in our weakness, to call to any prelate’s attention his error. And err this Francis has. Over and over. No more. Enough. Let chips and heads fall and roll as they may. The good of the Church of our Lord and Savior is at stake. Every one of us is a member of the Body of Christ, and Francis is no different in that regard. He is a member only of the Body of Christ; he is not its Head.
His Holiness adjures, Let what you say be simply Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil! We’re hypocrites when we can’t love. Nowhere does he define what that hypocrisy is, the closest is Peter, circumcision, and adherence to the Law. Contextually, our remaining recourse is Amoris Laetitia’s relaxation of Rules. Often in fact consistently there’s the admonition by Francis to not be fixated on rules, to loosen up and basically learn to love. Thence a simple yes or no means yes to occasional laxity of practice considered love in contrast to no to rigor simply meaning in context obeying the commandments, to wit, the rules. If His Holiness intended to refer to the occasional, that is, exceptions, which may rarely occur, his overall doctrine in Amoris and elsewhere speak to a universal approach rather than exception. For example. Catholics believe that we are justified by Christ alone, in agreement with His Holiness. And we also firmly hold that absent of repentance there can be no justification. Now His Holiness calls this Pelagianism, an attempt to save ourselves without Christ and in agreement with Martin Luther insists on justification by Christ alone. A universal contrary to exception. All that’s required then is faith, not good works the effect of repentance. We must make a judgment on whether a doctrine holds water. Our recourse is the effects of a doctrine, how it’s interpreted and whether it’s tolerated by His Holiness. If Malta, Germany are proving ground we have universal rather than exception to the rule. Fortunately then, those of us who seem to fall into his basket of deplorable hypocrites are not Lutheran. We are Catholic by identity and practice.
What then in Amoris Laetitia would lead the priest to weigh judgment in favor of the penitent living in manifest adultery? The premises Ch 8 as couched predetermine the outcome of discernment. If a person divorced and remarried outside the Church believing in conscience justified, as to what some say was never a marriage strives to be faithful to his current union and to the Church offering Our Lord the best he can in his concrete situation we are compelled to be merciful on the basis of that person’s conscientious belief, his hardship situation in respect to a failed marriage for which he believes he is not responsible, and his benevolent disposition to the Church. That the Eucharist is a remedy for him that Amoris points to in n 351. Otherwise the priest is rigid and apparently detestably hypocritical. Elsewhere the Pontiff says we deny the penitent that which he requires. As presented in Amoris Pope Francis also refers to other “irregular unions” that fall into the same category for discernment. Irregular unions that imply cohabitation, same sex relationships the latter in respect to adults presently under continued revision within the relevant Dicasteries. In effect the premises noted above affect all moral doctrine.
I’ve read that fn. 351 (which you elaborate) is a footnote reduction of the inventive two-hour introduction to the synodal Amoris Laetitia, from Cardinal Kasper (once identified as Pope Francis’ favorite theologian). Surely Kasper wanted more than a somewhat incongruous footnote which now, nevertheless, still serves as fuel for the synodal way(ward) in Germania.
At its possible (remotely possible) best, is fn. 351 just another example of big-tent group authorship followed by inclusive/congregational editing? And, the drop of cyanide in the punch bowl.
And, now we have a sort of “dubia” submitted by Jewish rabbis questioning what is meant by very recent comments from Pope Francis, on the relationship between the (obsolete?) Torah and the Incarnation. The Law versus the freedom of Mercy, rather than both/and as with Christ as the “fulfillment of the Law” (Mt 5:17)..
Voices suggest that the new troublesome wording was simply penned by underling staff, and not properly vetted. Here’s what Pope St. John Paul II had to say about this false dichotomy:
“Freedom is properly so called to the extent that it implements the truth regarding the good. Only then does it become a good in itself. If freedom ceases to be linked with truth and begins to make truth dependent on freedom, it sets the premises for dangerous moral consequences, which can assume incalculable dimensions. When this happens, the abuse of freedom provides a reaction which takes the form of one totalitarian system or another. This is another form of corruption of freedom, the consequences of which we have experienced in the twentieth century” (Memory and Identity, 2005).
The task of Vatican ghost writers and editors is not only to PROCLAIM one truth (Mercy, for example), but to do this without UNSAYING other truths. Perhaps there are several reasons why this skill is so difficult.
Archbishop La Plata ARG Víctor Manuel ‘Tucho’ Fernández, theologian, advisor and acknowledged ghostwriter for the Pontiff said 8.10.17 in Medellin [theology journal of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference] referring to Pope Francis on Amoris that: “A pastoral discernment in the realm of the internal forum can have practical consequences in the manner of applying the discipline. His [Francis’] emphasis is rather on the question of the possible diminution of responsibility and culpability. Although it can be held with all clarity and forcefulness that sexual relations for the divorced in a new union constitute an objective situation of habitual grave sin, this does not imply that there necessarily exists grave sin in a subjective sense, that is to say, grave guilt” (Edward Pentin article NCR 8.21.17). Archbishop Fernandez is an acknowledged major contributor to the doctrinal thought of Pope Francis. Fernandez apparently perceived an entrée in the difference of objective grave sin from subjective culpability, which in instances due to mitigation the subject may not incur grave sin. Allegedly Ch 8 focuses on this premise, the Archbishop saying [I read somewhere] that “we laid out the argument and let him [Francis] spin it in Amoris”. While it is true the conditions under which an objective inherently grievous offence may not always incur grievous culpability, those conditions are rare. Reasonably assessed there must be severe conditions unlike the presumption that the circumstances of remarriage outside the Church present. Even if that improbability were the case we have the untenable issue of discernment. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis 3, “We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the judge”. Saint Ignatius’ doctrine of discernment was never intended for priests to be confessional soothsayers able to read souls. A priest is limited to judgment on the external matter. We stand by the long held conviction that God alone is judge of the internal state of the soul.
Stated differently outlier theologians like Víctor Manuel ‘Tucho’ Fernández propose that–in addition to objective morality, and in addition to special cases of mitigated culpability—there’s now a third category altogether, whereby objective morality is simply suspended, and this as a discernment emanating from the conflict-of-interest subjective conscience.
A third category? Where have we heard this before–the “third option!”
A progressive malignancy now reaching beyond simply the reassignment of abusive priests laterally from one parish to another. A malignancy working its way backward (so to speak) from concrete cases into doctrine and moral theology.
One final note. As to redeeming an adulterous union when reasonable evidence for declaration of nullity is not available by reliance on judgment based on sentiment, Francis’ Amoris doctrine effectively removes the rational basis for determining manifest sin, and in effect all sin. When in fact the Pontiff said, “Who am I to judge?” regarding an active homosexual who was presumptively “trying his best” he revealed his Amoris doctrine of merciful redemption for the sinner who persists in his sin effectively replacing repentance.
And of the dozens of Catholic couples I’ve known in “irregular relationships,” reflecting on the Church’s “rules” (God’s merciful plan for His creation) and their relationships, when they completed their tirades of invective with curse words, after they were able to catch their breath, they did not quite give much indication they were quite interested in anything like “repentance,” nor did they even seem any more concerned about the first families, or multiple families, they left behind than Francis the merciful, “anti-hypocritical” Pope indicated he did in AL.
In the overlapping worlds of atmospheric/political/cultural “climate” change(s), we have the simplifying darling of the Left, Greta Thunberg (Shirley Temple reincarnated?)—who is said to suffer from Asperger syndrome (AS).
This from the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
“Asperger syndrome (AS) is a developmental disorder. It is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions characterized by a greater or lesser degree of impairment in language and communication skills, as well as repetitive or restrictive patterns of thought and behavior [!] [….] The most distinguishing symptom of AS is a child’s obsessive interest in a single object or topic to the exclusion of any other [!]. Children with AS want to know everything about their topic of interest and their conversations with others will be about little else. Their expertise, high level of vocabulary, and formal speech patterns make them seem like little professors [….]”
Can’t help but wonder if, in the overlapping universes of Revelation and Reason and the moral virtues (e.g., prudential judgment), there’s often a certificated and even clericalist equivalent to AS—-as in the myopia of overspecialized/ narrowed/exclusionary conceptual focus?
The humility and true enlightenment of AS versus the hypocrisy and rigidity of all those other “detestables”?
Let’s call a spade a spade. What you ask: “Can’t help but wonder if, in the overlapping universes of Revelation and Reason and the moral virtues (e.g., prudential judgment), there’s often a certificated and even clericalist equivalent to AS—-as in the myopia of overspecialized/ narrowed/exclusionary conceptual focus?”
I would say our Catholic heritage, our Catholic tradition, our Catholic Scriptures, our Catholic GOD would call that spade a SIN, a rejection of Revelation, a loss of faith, a scandal, and a sacrilege.
I think our Pope should stop directing his tirades in the faithful and start cleaning up the moral, doctrinal and financial corruption in the Vatican, including by his closest supporters. If he does not then he himself would be a hypocrite.
I’ve learned over the last 9 yrs. to not eat anything before reading most comments from this anti-pope imposter. Oh no, Father James is not a hypocrite, (Promote him) neither Cardinal Marx as he and his non-hypocrites send the Church into schism. These remarks were aimed at the Catholic faithful who insist on the truth of the Magisterium. God help us.
There he goes again. Like Barry, I need no pay for no weight loss plan. I need not listen to comedians either. Although I don’t think the Pope intends to humor us, the audacity and blind irony, are so ludicrous, I laugh. Then cry, then start my ‘counting’ beads and ejaculations to the good Lord for endurance and consolation.
Oremus.
Francis may wish to learn what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about Paul confronting Cephas:
“Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.”
IOW, we the little laity, should have no fear to correct those under whom we are subject. We in our weakness, may, in our zeal, call upon the power and strength of Christ, made perfect in our weakness, to call to any prelate’s attention his error. And err this Francis has. Over and over. No more. Enough. Let chips and heads fall and roll as they may. The good of the Church of our Lord and Savior is at stake. Every one of us is a member of the Body of Christ, and Francis is no different in that regard. He is a member only of the Body of Christ; he is not its Head.
His Holiness adjures, Let what you say be simply Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil! We’re hypocrites when we can’t love. Nowhere does he define what that hypocrisy is, the closest is Peter, circumcision, and adherence to the Law. Contextually, our remaining recourse is Amoris Laetitia’s relaxation of Rules. Often in fact consistently there’s the admonition by Francis to not be fixated on rules, to loosen up and basically learn to love. Thence a simple yes or no means yes to occasional laxity of practice considered love in contrast to no to rigor simply meaning in context obeying the commandments, to wit, the rules. If His Holiness intended to refer to the occasional, that is, exceptions, which may rarely occur, his overall doctrine in Amoris and elsewhere speak to a universal approach rather than exception. For example. Catholics believe that we are justified by Christ alone, in agreement with His Holiness. And we also firmly hold that absent of repentance there can be no justification. Now His Holiness calls this Pelagianism, an attempt to save ourselves without Christ and in agreement with Martin Luther insists on justification by Christ alone. A universal contrary to exception. All that’s required then is faith, not good works the effect of repentance. We must make a judgment on whether a doctrine holds water. Our recourse is the effects of a doctrine, how it’s interpreted and whether it’s tolerated by His Holiness. If Malta, Germany are proving ground we have universal rather than exception to the rule. Fortunately then, those of us who seem to fall into his basket of deplorable hypocrites are not Lutheran. We are Catholic by identity and practice.
What then in Amoris Laetitia would lead the priest to weigh judgment in favor of the penitent living in manifest adultery? The premises Ch 8 as couched predetermine the outcome of discernment. If a person divorced and remarried outside the Church believing in conscience justified, as to what some say was never a marriage strives to be faithful to his current union and to the Church offering Our Lord the best he can in his concrete situation we are compelled to be merciful on the basis of that person’s conscientious belief, his hardship situation in respect to a failed marriage for which he believes he is not responsible, and his benevolent disposition to the Church. That the Eucharist is a remedy for him that Amoris points to in n 351. Otherwise the priest is rigid and apparently detestably hypocritical. Elsewhere the Pontiff says we deny the penitent that which he requires. As presented in Amoris Pope Francis also refers to other “irregular unions” that fall into the same category for discernment. Irregular unions that imply cohabitation, same sex relationships the latter in respect to adults presently under continued revision within the relevant Dicasteries. In effect the premises noted above affect all moral doctrine.
I’ve read that fn. 351 (which you elaborate) is a footnote reduction of the inventive two-hour introduction to the synodal Amoris Laetitia, from Cardinal Kasper (once identified as Pope Francis’ favorite theologian). Surely Kasper wanted more than a somewhat incongruous footnote which now, nevertheless, still serves as fuel for the synodal way(ward) in Germania.
At its possible (remotely possible) best, is fn. 351 just another example of big-tent group authorship followed by inclusive/congregational editing? And, the drop of cyanide in the punch bowl.
And, now we have a sort of “dubia” submitted by Jewish rabbis questioning what is meant by very recent comments from Pope Francis, on the relationship between the (obsolete?) Torah and the Incarnation. The Law versus the freedom of Mercy, rather than both/and as with Christ as the “fulfillment of the Law” (Mt 5:17)..
Voices suggest that the new troublesome wording was simply penned by underling staff, and not properly vetted. Here’s what Pope St. John Paul II had to say about this false dichotomy:
“Freedom is properly so called to the extent that it implements the truth regarding the good. Only then does it become a good in itself. If freedom ceases to be linked with truth and begins to make truth dependent on freedom, it sets the premises for dangerous moral consequences, which can assume incalculable dimensions. When this happens, the abuse of freedom provides a reaction which takes the form of one totalitarian system or another. This is another form of corruption of freedom, the consequences of which we have experienced in the twentieth century” (Memory and Identity, 2005).
The task of Vatican ghost writers and editors is not only to PROCLAIM one truth (Mercy, for example), but to do this without UNSAYING other truths. Perhaps there are several reasons why this skill is so difficult.
Archbishop La Plata ARG Víctor Manuel ‘Tucho’ Fernández, theologian, advisor and acknowledged ghostwriter for the Pontiff said 8.10.17 in Medellin [theology journal of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference] referring to Pope Francis on Amoris that: “A pastoral discernment in the realm of the internal forum can have practical consequences in the manner of applying the discipline. His [Francis’] emphasis is rather on the question of the possible diminution of responsibility and culpability. Although it can be held with all clarity and forcefulness that sexual relations for the divorced in a new union constitute an objective situation of habitual grave sin, this does not imply that there necessarily exists grave sin in a subjective sense, that is to say, grave guilt” (Edward Pentin article NCR 8.21.17). Archbishop Fernandez is an acknowledged major contributor to the doctrinal thought of Pope Francis. Fernandez apparently perceived an entrée in the difference of objective grave sin from subjective culpability, which in instances due to mitigation the subject may not incur grave sin. Allegedly Ch 8 focuses on this premise, the Archbishop saying [I read somewhere] that “we laid out the argument and let him [Francis] spin it in Amoris”. While it is true the conditions under which an objective inherently grievous offence may not always incur grievous culpability, those conditions are rare. Reasonably assessed there must be severe conditions unlike the presumption that the circumstances of remarriage outside the Church present. Even if that improbability were the case we have the untenable issue of discernment. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis 3, “We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the judge”. Saint Ignatius’ doctrine of discernment was never intended for priests to be confessional soothsayers able to read souls. A priest is limited to judgment on the external matter. We stand by the long held conviction that God alone is judge of the internal state of the soul.
Stated differently outlier theologians like Víctor Manuel ‘Tucho’ Fernández propose that–in addition to objective morality, and in addition to special cases of mitigated culpability—there’s now a third category altogether, whereby objective morality is simply suspended, and this as a discernment emanating from the conflict-of-interest subjective conscience.
A third category? Where have we heard this before–the “third option!”
A progressive malignancy now reaching beyond simply the reassignment of abusive priests laterally from one parish to another. A malignancy working its way backward (so to speak) from concrete cases into doctrine and moral theology.
One final note. As to redeeming an adulterous union when reasonable evidence for declaration of nullity is not available by reliance on judgment based on sentiment, Francis’ Amoris doctrine effectively removes the rational basis for determining manifest sin, and in effect all sin. When in fact the Pontiff said, “Who am I to judge?” regarding an active homosexual who was presumptively “trying his best” he revealed his Amoris doctrine of merciful redemption for the sinner who persists in his sin effectively replacing repentance.
And of the dozens of Catholic couples I’ve known in “irregular relationships,” reflecting on the Church’s “rules” (God’s merciful plan for His creation) and their relationships, when they completed their tirades of invective with curse words, after they were able to catch their breath, they did not quite give much indication they were quite interested in anything like “repentance,” nor did they even seem any more concerned about the first families, or multiple families, they left behind than Francis the merciful, “anti-hypocritical” Pope indicated he did in AL.
In the overlapping worlds of atmospheric/political/cultural “climate” change(s), we have the simplifying darling of the Left, Greta Thunberg (Shirley Temple reincarnated?)—who is said to suffer from Asperger syndrome (AS).
This from the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
“Asperger syndrome (AS) is a developmental disorder. It is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions characterized by a greater or lesser degree of impairment in language and communication skills, as well as repetitive or restrictive patterns of thought and behavior [!] [….] The most distinguishing symptom of AS is a child’s obsessive interest in a single object or topic to the exclusion of any other [!]. Children with AS want to know everything about their topic of interest and their conversations with others will be about little else. Their expertise, high level of vocabulary, and formal speech patterns make them seem like little professors [….]”
Can’t help but wonder if, in the overlapping universes of Revelation and Reason and the moral virtues (e.g., prudential judgment), there’s often a certificated and even clericalist equivalent to AS—-as in the myopia of overspecialized/ narrowed/exclusionary conceptual focus?
The humility and true enlightenment of AS versus the hypocrisy and rigidity of all those other “detestables”?
Let’s call a spade a spade. What you ask: “Can’t help but wonder if, in the overlapping universes of Revelation and Reason and the moral virtues (e.g., prudential judgment), there’s often a certificated and even clericalist equivalent to AS—-as in the myopia of overspecialized/ narrowed/exclusionary conceptual focus?”
I would say our Catholic heritage, our Catholic tradition, our Catholic Scriptures, our Catholic GOD would call that spade a SIN, a rejection of Revelation, a loss of faith, a scandal, and a sacrilege.
May God help such hideous souls. Oremus.
I am so tired of PF’s tirades.
I think our Pope should stop directing his tirades in the faithful and start cleaning up the moral, doctrinal and financial corruption in the Vatican, including by his closest supporters. If he does not then he himself would be a hypocrite.