Boston's [Cardinal] O'Malley: Pope prefers to talk love, not abortion
Joshua J. McElwee | Aug. 7, 2013, National Chismatic Reporter--read the full article HERE.
Joshua J. McElwee of the NCR quotes Cardinal O'Malley on Pope Francis' strategy in promoting the teaching of the Church. Here are some of the quotes which you can read in the article I link above:
Pope Francis has not mentioned traditional hot-button Catholic issues like abortion because he prefers to emphasize that Catholics "love people" and are not "mean or old-fashioned," Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley has said.
"Some people think that the Holy Father should talk more about abortion," O'Malley told approximately 2,000 attendees, according to a copy of the remarks posted online.
"I think he speaks of love and mercy to give people the context for the Church's teaching on abortion," he continued. "We oppose abortion, not because we are mean or old fashioned, but because we love people. And that is what we must show the world."
"We must love all people, even those who advocate abortion," O'Malley said. "It is only if we love them that we will be able to help them discover the sacredness of the life of an unborn child. Only love and mercy will open hearts that have been hardened by the individualism of our age."
"Our efforts to heal the wounds of society will depend on our capacity to love and to be faithful to our mission. The Holy Father is showing us very clearly that our struggle is not just a political battle or a legal problem, but that we must evangelize and humanize the culture, then the world will be safe for the unborn, the elderly and the unproductive.
"The Gospel of Life is a Gospel of [m]ercy. If we are going to get a hearing in today's world, it will be because people recognize that authenticity of our lives and our dedication to building a civilization of love. We are called to live our lives as a service to others and commit our lives to give witness to the presence of God's love and mercy in our midst."
MY COMMENTS: I hope Pope Francis' strategy works; I pray that it does. We have not be successful one bit in terms of our political advocacy about any of the hot button social issues including abortion and same sex marriage to date and it looks like we are cascading to partial birth abortion being legal everywhere too as well as same sex marriage. I wonder what good the "Fortnight for Freedom" did for the Church through shrill political advocacy and did we tempt God by our prayerful arrogance for Him not to answer our prayers in the way we demanded?
I have always felt that we cannot control people and what they do. The Church is not a police state and priests are not policemen looking through window lattices as PI's and peeping Toms on the prowl to catch people in compromising sexual sins. The modern Church can only be a voice for love, common decency and calling people to the truth of Christ which is out in the open in Scripture, Tradition, Natural Law and handed on by the Magisterium of the Church and found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other sources.
So while the Holy Father hasn't spoken directly to the cultural political/religious issues of the day, he calls the world to love as Christ did, the poor and marginalized (which implies the unborn) and to uphold the dignity of people all the while calling them to conversion to Christ (which implies the adulterers, fornicators and those who live in sexual sin) the Holy Father is teaching as Christ. He has not called anyone to continue to sin but to seek God's mercy in the Sacrament of Penance and that even though we grow tired of seeking forgiveness, God never tires of granting His mercy and forgiveness. Pope Francis has modeled hearing confessions before Mass to make it more available to the laity as this Sacrament should be the primary ministry of bishops and priests, not glad handing parishioners before Mass.
He has called for fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church in a way Pope Benedict never did. Only an idiot would not know what this means in Catholic parlance. He has called the Church, Holy Mother and has held up the Blessed Mother in a way that no other pope has done recently including Pope John Paul II. He is calling for a revival of popular devotions amongst the laity.
But he is also calling for a spirit of "SHAME" for the wrong we do which motivates us to seek the balm of mercy in the sacrament of Penance and to turn away from our sexual sins, our desire for abortions, our hatred, our antipathy to the poor, the unborn, the marginalized. This implies a sense of conscience even on blogs where name calling and ugly words are used against those who proposed ideas contrary to what the commenter likes. Shame is good, Holy Father Francis tells us and when we all recover a sense of shame in our lives and seek ways to allow God to help us over come it by conversion to Him, then we will truly be a pro-life society.
23 comments:
O'Malley's quotations in particular are good to remember. But it does ignore the idea that sometimes, with some people, "tough love" may be the only tactic that works. Without that, the Church's message of love, especially when distorted by the media, simply becomes license without any sort of imposition of responsibility.
In a sense, we've been going the "Love is all you need" route since the late 1960s, and even the popes who have occasionally spoken in a "thou shalt not" tone of voice have taken this approach. The track record has been anything but positive. Thus, I dout that more of the same is going to accomplish anything but more of the same.
We need a few (or more than a few) judicious (and very public) excommunications, not only for the good of the persons excommunicated but for the good of the Faithful. To act as if Pelosi/Biden/Sebelius/Kerry aren't gravely endangering their own souls, and through scandal the souls of others, is to show them no love and to do them a grave injustice.
Acts, not words.
“God does not require that we be successful only that we be faithful.”
― Mother Teresa
We are mandated to speak the truth with love. My understanding is that this is the path to sanctity in this life and joy in eternity. As a very holy priest continually reminded us here locally: " KISS--keep it simple, stupid". It helps...
KISS, a principle often invoked by the Scholastics, e.g. Duns Scotus: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" and often referred to as 'Occam's razor', "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", although that phrase does not appear in any of his writings.
Many folks believe that our bishops must be good politicians. Say the clever things, they say, that sound good to reining cultural arbiters so that the Church will appear "well-coming and loving". Otherwise, take it on the chin and add to the martyrs around the world.
What may work better in the long run is if they "say yes when they mean yes, and no when they mean no because anything else is from the Evil One?
I agree completely with Anonymous 5. This love is all you need schtick makes this former Calvinist wanna' puke.
One central point I am getting out of this excellent post is that we should all question our real motivations and first attend to the plank in our own eye before all else. Have I understood correctly?
So, let me get this straight, Anon 2,...the enemies of the Church are storming the gates, demanding a change of dogma, ridiculing tradition and liturgy, advocating for the acceptance of moral outrages...but we are to say nothing and do nothing because we should be ashamed of the presumption.
I witness a group of feral minorities beating up a Priest on Cherry Street, but I do nothing because I am worried it might be racist to shoot them.
A Pope decides that gay marriages should be blessed by the Church and performed by Priests. But, I have to accept this because, well, I mean, maybe it would be homophobic not to...gee, golly, maybe I could secretly be queer. Am I? Oh, my goodness...I'd better just be quiet.
"...the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity..."
I think bishops and the Pope should teach the Catholic faith whole and entire, in season and out, of course as charitably as possibe. The problem in the Church is that catechesis and preaching and teaching of the faith for forty years has basically ignored the controversial moral bits, such that the peeps in the pews, even if they know what the faith teaches, don't accept it. How is this strategy of silence any different from what has been done since the Council? And as we can see from the mainsteam Protestant experience, liberals basically have a long term strategy, of first simply being silent or equivocal on their dissent, but where politically feasible, to promote the dissent. In the Protestant churches, this has gone on to triumphing in the Church administration and outlawing traditional orthodox views on sexual morality. Color me skeptical about this naive policy of our new Holy Father. The liberals will use this to push their dissent and try to triumph.
No, Gene, you have it wrong. The reason you don't shoot the people beating up the priest is because you have been racist in the past and you still struggle with being racist, not because shooting the assailants is in itself (or could be construed as) a racist act. You would say, as you watched the attack proceed, "Given my own sins and failings, well . . . who am I to judge them?" Sort of like Pope Francis said recently re gays.
Thank you, Anon 5, I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
Gene and Anon. 5:
Well, of course, I said none of those things, did I? You sarcastically project the negative implications into my comment. Does this arguably prove my point perhaps? In any event, I seem to have struck a nerve.
I was trying to interpret Father McDonald’s meaning, and indeed even asking whether I had understood correctly – I had hoped he might respond himself. I was taking my cue especially from the final paragraph of his comments together with some of his other comments such as:
“We have not be successful one bit in terms of our political advocacy about any of the hot button social issues including abortion and same sex marriage to date and it looks like we are cascading to partial birth abortion being legal everywhere too as well as same sex marriage. I wonder what good the "Fortnight for Freedom" did for the Church through shrill political advocacy and did we tempt God by our prayerful arrogance for Him not to answer our prayers in the way we demanded?”
Or, to put it another way in the language you so aptly quote, but so inaptly apply, Gene, should we first be sure that our passionate intensity proceeds from the best in us and not from the worst in us?
Anon 2, I believe you have your passionate intensity and lack of conviction confused...
That's a fair point, Gene. We should ask the same question in regard to both. I agree.
No sarcasm intended, A2. I was intending to point out in a light way a serious difference I had with Gene's statement. I also digressively (if that's a word) threw in some concern I had with the pope's recent statement.
I can certainly see how you perceived that I was aiming sarcasm at you and I apologize if that's how you saw it. I am far more aware of all sorts of planks in my eyes than some people here would think.
In general, my comment reflects that I've essentially given up hope that the current hierarchy will ever speak the truth in love to any sinners again, except for perceived sins of racism, sexism, or failure to endorse "social justice." Perhaps I'm being extreme in such statements, but it is one born of despair. And that despair is born of not abstract theorizing, as you might expect from me as an academic, but some very unpleasant experiences I have had in the past.
Thank you, Anon. 5, I appreciate the clarification. And I agree that sometimes “tough love” is necessary. However, as you imply, perhaps it is appropriate only as a last resort. And I am not sure we are at that point yet. Nor, it would seem, is Pope Francis.
On the hopelessness and despair point, obviously I don’t know about the experiences to which you allude, but we can’t really allow ourselves to give in to that (even with regard to the current hierarchy), can we?
Why should tough love be only a last resort?
A2, it isn't (in my case, at least) a matter of allowing one's self to give in. People have limits of will and faith.
Gene, I agree strongly. A little tough love judiciously applied early on can prevent massive problems later. If Paul VI had excommunicated, or at least publicly sanctioned, the handful of vocal dissidents to Humanae Vitae in 1968, we may well have avoided the de facto indifferentism that seems rampant in today's Church. Maybe not, or maybe it would have encouraged a formal mass exodus from the Church. But in the latter case we'd at least have a Church whose members, and perhaps leaders, were more on the same page in terms of what they profess. Frankly, it's hard to imagine that things could have been made any worse. The dreadful states of catechesis and Mass attendance, leaving aside all other considerations and issues are alone enough to suggest that.
Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
Violence is a by-product of sin and the Fall..often necessary to defend the Faith and combat evil.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony,
Grow apple trees and honey bees..."*projectile vomit*
Can’t grow honey bees, Gene. They’re dying:
http://science.time.com/2013/05/07/beepocalypse-redux-honey-bees-are-still-dying-and-we-still-dont-know-why/
Could it have something to do with our "violence," I wonder?
No, Anon 2, it isn't because of violence. It is due to the cloying effect of PC that is being sprayed everywhere like skunk effluvia. Besides, this is old news and it is ultimately George Bush's fault...
Quoi?
Hi Gene. Please explain how the unqualified extension of love and mercy to others - in keeping with Christ's command - would make a Calvinist "puke."
P.S. If you're trolling, I post this to advise those unfamiliar with Calvinism against taking all comments made in re Calvin at face value (including my own).
P.P.S. If you're joking, I would not recommend such a cavalier attitude with respect to one of the greatest scholars of Scripture that ever lived. I wonder if, in 400 years, we will have a school of Scriptural analysis entitled "Geneism"?
Post a Comment