Translate

Saturday, April 20, 2019

YES! BUT..., BUT THE BUT LEAVES ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD AND THAT UNDERMINES THE “YES”


Press title for complete Crux article with tweeter video of the event, but read my head scratching comments first:

Pope Francis tells gay man ‘you do not lose your dignity’ on BBC



Why is it that this pope always snatches defeat out of victory? This could have been a wonderful “woman caught in adultery” moment, but the Holy Father’s last words to the sinner, also a noun, misses the mark of Christ.

Speaking to Pope Francis, a man says he is a gay man. The first part of Pope Francis response is perfect upholding the intrinsic dignity of every person created in the image and likeness of God:

Giving more importance to the adjective (gay) rather than the noun (man), this is not good. We are all human beings and have dignity.” 

But then the Holy Father says this which is the head scratcher:

It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity.” 

I read this in two differing ways. One way is WHO YOU ARE DEFINES YOU NOT WHAT YOU DO. This is true Catholic anthropology of the person.

But the pope could be read as saying, you have God’s dignity no matter what and so go and sin as much as you want. It doesn't matter who you are or how you live your life.

Then the Holy Father says this:

There are people that prefer to select or discard people because of the adjective - these people don’t have a human heart.” 

Here the pope dehumanizes a judgmental person focusing precisely on the adjective and not the noun. Holy Father did not you just say it doesn’t matter how you live your life, you don’t lose your dignity?

12 comments:

Dan said...

My feelings are hurt. We must reclaim our dignity and our rights. We need LETTERS, and lots of them! Rigid, conservative, judgemental, neo-pelagian and MORE,

RCJN rights NOW!

If we "letterize" maybe Francis will stop hating on us...

Add more please.

John Nolan said...

PF is a Peronist. Like the late dictator he tells people what they want to hear. He is also a Jesuit and believes that there is no absolute truth and everything is a question of 'discernment'.

Anonymous 2 said...

Might not Pope Francis be drawing on a distinction between the true self or soul that is the locus of our true humanity (with an inherent God-given dignity and connection) and the false, culturally constructed self that is associated with, and the vehicle for committing, all kinds of inhuman, alienating sin (including a judgmentalism that selects or discards)? Don’t we all mostly parade around with our false selves on display and our true selves smothered and invisible or barely visible even (or especially?) to ourselves?

As for a possible missed opportunity, the full article from Crux suggests that had the Holy Father treated this as a “woman caught in adultery” moment, the gay man Stephen Amos would probably have shut down completely. Is it possible that by answering as he did Pope Francis has enabled Stephen Amos to take a first step, not by telling him what he wanted to hear but by telling him what he needed to hear at that moment in those particular circumstances? In other words, doesn’t what “accompaniment” means depend on where the person being accompanied is on their particular spiritual journey in life?

I think back to my own journey into the Church many decades ago. As a very shy and uncomfortable unchurched undergraduate, I approached a C of E priest to ask some questions about religion. This was a HUGE step for me. But the priest read me wrong and came on far too strong and had me on my knees praying before our meeting was out. Result? I scurried away almost in terror. It was two years before I plucked up enough courage to ask questions again. And this time I asked one of my tutors at college, who was Roman Catholic. Very wisely and very gently he said he would send me some books to read. He did, and I did. I think my tutor is the main reason I am a Catholic today.

So, when I read about Pope Francis having an exchange such as this one with Stephen Amos, I see it through the eyes of my own experience. We are all creatures of our experience, aren’t we? And the lesson I learned from my own experience is that we must be very, very careful how we evangelize. Say the wrong thing and we may drive someone away from the Church for years, perhaps for good. I think Pope Francis understands this.

I urge people to read the full article in Crux.

Dan said...

I am sympathetic to your viewpoint this time Anonymous 2, but I don't think Francis is smart, or insightful enough for this to be the case.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I basically like Pope Francis’ emphasis on being pastoral and pastoral theology was emphasized in my seminary in the 1970’s. It was a new theology only developing after Vatican II to emphasize that the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders isn’t just cultic but pastoral, not above people but with them.

An example of this which can be fraught with dangers for a celibate priest are the “rectory” options for priests. When I was in Augusta and pastor of the downtown parish, l lived for three years in a rented townhouse in a regular complex six blocks away from the Church. Eventually we purchased a home near the complex in a regular neighborhood. That makes a difference living in the midst of all kinds of people.

Currently I live in a beautiful home in an upper middle class neighborhood eight miles from the Church. I commute back and forth.

I do not and have never wanted to control people’s lives or sexuality. I have gay and straight friends sexually active. They know what I believe and they know I teach what the Church teaches about chastity.

My problem with this pope’s off the cuff remarks is that he is always ambiguous. It does matter how we live our lives, but our intrinsic worth despite our lifestyles is more important.

It isn’t either/or but both/and.

What is unpastoral is for the pope to discourage Catholics tempted in sexual ways to give up the guest for chastity and return or give in to a life of license.

Dan said...

Also A2, let us consider a pastor of souls that IS wise enough to give specific counsels considering the situation of an individual... they would NOT give the counsel in a public situation where the advice could be misinterpreted. This is a small part of the reason why I do not think that Francis is in any way - wise.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Sad that you did not enter the Church when it was a great,universal Church, instead of a pablum dispenser. The pablum dispenser does not dare utter our Lord's words: Go and sin no more. I agree with John Nolan's assessment of PF. He is resurrecting the spirit of Vatican II approach which has caused deep and perhaps lasting damage to Holy Mother Church.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM,

I would likely never have joined the pre-Vatican II Church. Although I was definitely attracted to the Church’s universality in space and time and would certainly have appreciated the TLM, I could not have joined a Church that condemned my mother to decades of being denied communion because she “married outside the Church” or that had the attitude it did towards my Jewish friends. As I said, we are all creatures of our own experience.

Did the post-Vatican II Church go too far in some respects? Yes, of course it did; that is in the nature of reactions. So does the reaction to Vatican II in some quarters. Pendulums are like that, especially when swinging under the influence of our false selves. Hopefully, however, we will stabilize around a more balanced position as we grow in humility and gain a better sense of our true selves.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

I came from a religiously "diverse" family and we had many who could not receive communion for the reasons you cite. Save for heretical interpretations of Amoris Laetitiae, those rules remain in effect. Holy Communion is not a goody bar open to all. Since Church's are voluntary organizations no one is compelled to join, but neither should the joiners attempt to impose their values on the Church.

If the post-Vatican II Church had remained strong the Democratic Party would NEVER have jumped on the infanticide bandwagon. One thing I am curious about. Liberals always slobber about the "sophisticated" Europeans. Why, then pray tell, did they not adopt the European approach to abortion, limiting it to the first 20 weeks, rather than adopting the abortion views of the Red Chinese?

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM,

I will reply to your comment as it was posted on Monday morning before your evening posts.

My mother was a German cradle Catholic. She was unable to marry my English father (who was baptized in the C of E) with the permission of the pre-Vatican II Church because anti-Catholic bigotry (coupled with anti-German bigotry) on the part of my father’s family at the end of World War II prevented my parents from promising that their children (that would be me) would be baptized and educated as Catholics as required by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. My mother likely would have received permission if the 1983 Canon Law rules had been in effect provided she promised to do everything in her power to have me baptized and educated in the Catholic faith (a promise she doubtless would have sincerely made).

The story had a happy ending as I made my own journey into the Church at about the same time my father made his for independent reasons. I joined the Church and so did he. My parents’ marriage was then blessed by the Church and they subsequently both attended Mass and partook of communion regularly.

The lesson I took away from this family history is that attempted coercion by the Church did not work, but God’s grace is bigger than the Church. As I said, we are all creatures of our own experience.

As for liberals and abortion, I can’t help you. Ask a “liberal,” not me. I have stated my views on the subject of abortion very clearly on this Blog.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous 2

That's interesting. In the 1950s 'mixed marriages' were not common; usually the non-Catholic partner converted before the wedding. In your parents' case it would seem that anti-Catholic and indeed anti-German prejudice was more of a factor than the Church applying the rules more rigorously than is the case nowadays.

One of the last acts of Pope Paul VI was to withdraw permission at a very late stage for the Catholic marriage of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent in Vienna. Her first marriage had been annulled, so this was not a problem. However, she announced that any children would be brought up as Anglicans so as not to lose their right of succession (which was very remote). They had to make do with a civil ceremony. This was in 1978, long after Vatican II.

After a decent interval the marriage was blessed by Cardinal Hume in a private ceremony.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Thanks for your response. I guess I view Church rules differently than you do. Sometimes they may seem harsh, but charity is based on correcting error. PF seems to miss that essential point.

I guess where I see a big disconnect with you on abortion, in that I would not join a country club that excluded Blacks, Jews, or other minorities and I know you feel the same. Then why in God's name would you vote for a political party that actively promotes infanticide? It is very hard concept for me to get my arms around and I can't seem to conjure a "proporionate reason" that would permit a Cattholic to do so. I blame the hierarchy for this situation more than the person in the pew because so many of them are pusillanimous nothings.