Pope Francis calls for flexibility, patience as he opens talks on church teaching

[hrmjustin]

David Gibson
VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Thursday (Feb. 20) opened a major two-day meeting on the church’s approach to the complexities of modern family life, telling the world’s Catholic cardinals that the church needs a “pastoral” approach that is “intelligent, courageous and full of love” and not focused on abstract arguments.

In brief introductory remarks released by the Vatican, Francis pushed the closed-door summit of about 150 cardinals to “deepen the theology of the family and discern the pastoral practices which our present situation requires.”

He asked that they do so “thoughtfully” and by keeping the focus on “the beauty of family and marriage” while at the same time showing that the church is ready to help spouses “amid so many difficulties.” Francis added the phrase “intelligent, courageous and full of love” extemporaneously.

Francis summoned the cardinals to Rome for a weekend of ceremonies at which the pope will appoint his first batch of 19 “princes of the church,” as cardinals are often called.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/20/pope-francis-calls-flexibility-patience-opens-talks-church-teaching/

[MADem]

1. I smell movement on ..... BIRTH CONTROL....!!!!

I mean, really....no one can think that it's just an accident of fate that Catholic families have shrunk from seven, ten, twelve kids to .... two, maybe three or four, tops in the last half century or so just because...?

It's the easiest subject to overcome, I suspect, because, like it or not, everybody IS, in actual fact, doing it.

And as for the impossible, things are always impossible before they become possible:

But he asked them to arrive early so that they could spend time discussing one of Francis’ signature themes: shifting the church’s approach on controversial topics like divorce and remarriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and contraception.

Those issues will also be the focus of two larger and longer meetings of bishops at the Vatican this fall and in 2015.

“The pope has opened a dialogue, he’s not decided anything yet and now he’ll let us discuss,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, a German theologian who is a favorite of Francis, told Reuters on Thursday.

Kasper said the talks were not about changing doctrine or watering down traditional marriage — “that’s not possible,” he said. But “it’s a question of how to apply (church teaching to) the concrete, difficult, complex situation.”

[hrmjustin]

2. I hope so. I hope there is movement on a lot of things.

[MADem]

4. I think there will be...I think b/c is probably the easiest starter, since it's so damn obvious

that even "the faithful" are lying out their asses about the topic.

Gotta wish this Argentine Firecracker of the Vatican some good health and long life--he's got to be the one to get it done!

[hrmjustin]

5. God grant him many years.

[okasha]

7. Actually, I don't think they are.

At least among Catholics I know, they're pretty honest about their using b/c.

[MADem]

8. I doubt they're honest with their "confessah" though.

It's going against doctrine if they admit to anything other than the rhythm method.

[goldent]

22. I think by definition anything you confess is going against Church doctrine

otherwise there would really be no point in confessing it

[MADem]

26. Yeah, but "birth control" is something that folks keep on doing.

At least until they're out of reproductive danger...!

It's not like speaking sharply to an elder, missing church, or any other "one off" sins that can be atoned for and forgiven!

[cbayer]

3. That would be a great place to start.

[skepticscott]

6. In other words

he's doing his best to sound warm and fuzzy, while saying nothing meaningful and nothing that commits him or the church to anything. The Vatican has made their arguments on the issues of abortion, same sex marriage and contraception, and made them to be theologically airtight, as far a they're concerned. They can't just say, oops, sorry, we've had it wrong all this time, because they've made their arguments to be transcendent of time and place and culture. It's not like the Supreme Court overturning Plessy v Ferguson.

[MADem]

9. They did the OOPS we got it wrong before. It just doesn't happen in a hurry.

Little kids used to think they'd be struck by lightning if they ate a hotdog on Friday....

The Catholic Church is pretty glacial. But they do move slowly and eventually. And they aren't a democracy, either, so Supreme Court analogies aren't particularly salient.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Funny you use that example.

It is still church teaching that you can't eat meat on Friday. You can if you give up something else. The last part of that sentence is often forgotten.

So not so big an oops on their part. More of a, we still think you need to sacrifice but we'll give a touch on the meat if you give up something else that hurts a bit.

[MADem]

15. In Spain, while people were still cowering in fear about that Friday hotdog, it was possible to

purchase an indulgence for a few cents to have your sins forgiven, to include the sin of having a steak, never mind a hotdog, on Friday....

So maybe they'll allow the rubbers, if you put a few more bucks in the envelope, or something. It's a way to raise money, certainly.

[goldent]

23. I never heard that we are still not supposed to eat meat on Friday.

What is that stated?

[MADem]

27. I am no expert on the faith, but I have a lot of friends who are and I think it would be news to

them as well.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Canon Law 1249-53

Break it to them gently. During my seminary days, we never had meat on Friday the entire year.

CHAPTER II.

Days of Penance

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on ,of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year of age. The law of fasting, however, binds all those who have attained their majority until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors of souls and parents are to take care that minors not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are also educated in a genuine sense of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4O.HTM

[MADem]

30. I'm not gonna tell them what to do, but I can promise you this--they don't think that

there's any restrictions on what they eat on Fridays, and their priests aren't telling them otherwise, either!

[Goblinmonger]

31. I don't care what they do.

But Canon Law is pretty clear on this one. What they think and what the dogma is are two different things.

No idea why they don't know it, but they were pretty clear about it during my time at Seminary.

[goldent]

34. This doesn't seem to say what you claim

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

You need to read this carefully.

1.

The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence

So the bishops can say only Fridays of Lent (for example) should be days of abstinence.

2.

as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast

In addition to determining more precisely the days of fast and abstinence, the bishops can substitute some other forms of penance.

I think you incorrectly linked these phrases together.

So I think we would need to see what the conference of bishops have said. I know that from time to time our local bishop will declare that some holy day is not a day of obligation (I think mainly because no-one goes)

[Goblinmonger]

36. no

There has to be something on every Friday. It doesn't have to be meat but it needs to be something and the bishops could be more precise as to what the substitution should be.

And I don't think your Bishop can say a holy day of obligation is no longer a holy day of obligation. I might be wrong on that but it doesn't feel like something they get to make a call about.

[goldent]

40. You just need to read the cannon law very carefully.

The Bishop can "call off" a holy day on a case by case basis. For example, just last Jan 1 was called off - I think because with Christmas and the Sundays surrounding Christmas, no-one wants another Mass, particularly on Jan 1.

The law that allows this:

"Whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual welfare, the diocesan bishop can dispense the faithful from disciplinary laws, both universal laws and those particular laws made by the supreme ecclesiastical authority, for his territory or his subjects" (CIC 87 §1).

This whole discussion makes me think how things like contraception will be "legalized." The Church will hold its ground, but allow Bishops to act as above, i.e. dispense the restriction on contraception if he (they) judges that it contributes to the spiritual welfare of his territory. Very interesting!

It reminds me a little how the German supreme count ruled that the constitution gives protection of life starting at conception, but allowed the government to not prosecute for cases less than 20 (or so) weeks.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. And another day passes in silence and Uganda's pogrom catches fire.

This sort of thread....it really shows how the faith community thinks.

[hrmjustin]

11. Hey I spoke out against it.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Well then, time to move on to promoting those who created it as great guys.

It's definitive and unappealing. It is why membership in 'faith groups' is declining.

[hrmjustin]

13. Promoting? This is religious news and this is the religion room.

I am not RCC and I have been critical of the church on several issues. That does not mean I dismiss them.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Francis should be speaking out against what is happening in Uganda. Lavishing attention on him

as if he was not culpable in a great wrong is not to my taste.

[hrmjustin]

17. You do understand that this convocation of the College of Cardinals is about reform.

It is a story and that is why I am posting about it. I agree with you the pope needs to speak out against this bill and deal with his bishops in Uganda.

But while I agree with you on that I will post religion news in this room.

[kwassa]

35. Here is what the Episcopal Church has said about this situation.

as the US representative of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church has been in a theological conflict with Anglican bishops in Uganda, Nigeria, and Kenya, and some other members of their GAFCON clique, since we elevated an openly gay priest to bishop in 2003.

This is from the head of our church.

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2014/01/30/presiding-bishop-issues-statement-on-lgbt-rights/

The Episcopal Church has been clear about our expectation that every member of the LGBT community is entitled to the same respect and dignity as any other member of the human family. Our advocacy for oppressed minorities has been vocal and sustained. The current attempts to criminalize LGBT persons and their supporters are the latest in a series, each stage of which has been condemned by this Church, as well as many other religious communities and nations. Our advocacy work continues to build support for the full human rights and dignity of all persons, irrespective of gender, race, national origin, creed, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability or inability. To do less is effectively to repudiate our membership in the human community. No one of God’s children is worth less or more than another; none is to be discriminated against because of the way in which she or he has been created. Our common task is to build a society of justice for all, without which there will never be peace on earth. Episcopalians claim that our part in God’s mission is to love God fully, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means all our neighbors.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

[rug]

18. I, for one, will subscribe to a Uganda room.

[hrmjustin]

19. Do you think my post is promoting the Pope?

I thought it was just a story good for the religion room. I did clearly several times as a gay man speak out against the law. I also spoke out against Anglicans who supported this as well as other Christians that supported this.

I just don't get this.

[rug]

20. No, that statement is complete bullshit.

For some posters, any sentence about the Pope, the RCC, or Catholics, that does not contain the word bigot, misogynist, homophobe or pedophile, makes the author in their eyes a promoter, supporter or co-conspirator.

It's an important story which anyone who is not pushing an agenda will realize.

So is Uganda for that matter but this tactic does it a disservice.

[hrmjustin]

21. Thanks rug. I always thought I was fair in my praise and criticism.

[goldent]

24. hrmjustin I think everyone knows you are one of the most

fair minded people in this forum. However, you are a believer and you are pleased to see promising signs coming from the Pope. This is too much for some to bear.

[hrmjustin]

25. Thanks goldent. I am always hopeful.

Or at least try to be.

[MADem]

28. I think someone is trying a bit too hard to goad and bait you.

Consider the source; you've done nothing wrong.

I guess it's a substitute for "having a life," ya know...to crap on someone else's thread about something completely unrelated. No one is stopping that poster from initiating a thread on that or any topic of such grave and profound interest, yet somehow, that's just too hard! Way easier to come to a thread about a meeting on internal church reform, and gripe about a serious political and human rights issue!

Why the hell isn't the damn reactor at Fukishima on this agenda, too, while we're at it? And ... and ... and...they need to get busy fixing those potholes in NYC, too!

Water off a duck's back....! That's how you need to take that kind of attack...

[hrmjustin]

32. Thanks MADem!

[cbayer]

33. While I would also like to see the pope use his power and position to

address Uganda's heinous position on GLBT issues, is it not possible to see that some good may come from this conference?

There are things I would like Obama to address, but I can still support him for the things he does do.

I think it's unfair to basically say that anyone who shows any support for this pope or the direction/tone that the Vatican is taking is somehow complicit in what is going on in Uganda.

I realize this is a very important issue and it should be, and I think the "faith community" on this site are appalled at the role some religious groups have (particularly some extreme fundamentalist christian groups).

But I don't think you are going to garner more support by attacking those who are also interested in other issues that religion offers up.

[MellowDem]

37. I wonder when they'll just give up the game...

Of lying to themselves and others? How many more thousands of years of logical contortions and dishonesty to make an ancient book and belief system based on presumptions seemingly conform to reality and practicality, at least enough to survive to the next generation? How many more easily rebutted and irrational apologetics and excuses? Must be tiring.

In the meantime, their terrible beliefs will hurt and kill many and restrict the rights of others.

I guess I should feel good if they finally change some of their terrible beliefs to slightly less terrible beliefs, but I don't feel much, they're all still based on lies, assumptions and an utter reliance on childhood indoctrination for continued existence. Even the nice beliefs are. Kinda poisons their whole outlook and philosophy.

If I see the Church change stances on issues and being heartily congratulated for it while keeping to the same poisonous foundation, it only saddens me and makes me angry. It's a mockery of humanity. It's a mewling, disingenuous attempt at relevancy. It's showing up to the work site late and pretending you've been working there the whole time, indeed, the good work started with you!

I'm sick of seeing others howl with happiness as bigots and misogynists say things others have said many times before with much better intentions and foundations for why. The reality is that religion is in the way of progress, and even as it contorts to survive, well, it's still in the way.

[hrmjustin]

38. Then pray it turns to the left.

[rug]

39. Likely you'll be saddened and angry as long as there is disagreement with your opinion of religion.

[cbayer]

41. And I'm sick of seeing people whose blinders and apparent childhood indoctrination

keeps them from seeing anything but green slime when they look at religion.

If not childhood indoctrination, then how might one explain the dogmatic, rigid and completely negative view that one might have of something so complex and diverse as religion?

I can think of no other way to explain it.

[MellowDem]

42. I was indoctrinated as a child....

into religion. Hence my first-hand experience and understanding of religion. Religion is not so complex or diverse as to not be understood or criticized as a whole. It has a definition and foundation, one that is harmful in many ways. I know a common apologist argument is to make words and concepts so vague as to be meaningless, and in that way protect them from criticism, but I've always found that to be a substitute for discussion, a dodge.

My view of religion is not dogmatic or rigid. Neither is my view of conservatism. It's an informed opinion. You saying it is doesn't make it so.

Given that religion is based on faith and faith encourages false beliefs, which can be harmful in a lot of ways IMHO, I don't think my dislike of religion is dogmatic or rigid, but based on a good reason. If you find that critique dogmatic or rigid, then look up the definitions of those two words, and explain why.

I'll give you some hints. This is my opinion, based on preferences, so I'm not making a truth claim. And I'm willing to change my opinion if anyone can come up with good reasons.

[cbayer]

43. Your single experience is just that - a single experience.

I would suggest that you are now indoctrinated into something entirely different. Perhaps it is a reaction to your individual experience, but the way you extend this to include the experiences of every one else is really extreme.

Religion is extremely complex and diverse, probably more than just about anything else. It has many definitions and many foundations. You experienced only a very small bite of the pie.

I know that a common anti-theist argument is to make the definitions and concepts so narrow and specific as to be dogmatic. It is also a substitute for discussion and a massive dodge.

Your view is on the extremes. You are not alone out there, but you are far away from most.

I am not religious, but I believe in faith. Faith gives one courage, strength and the capacity to explore. Without it, one is stuck in the places that feel safe. That's comfortable, I am sure, but I wouldn't want a world full of people devoid of faith.

Many times in my life I made decisions in which I felt like I was jumping off a cliff. Faith is why I was able to jump, but it wasn't religious faith. It was more often than not faith in myself and in those I trusted the most. I was not always right, but I do not regret any of it.

This is your opinion. It is strident and I think it alienates you. If those are not reasons to consider other perspectives, that is your choice.

[MellowDem]

44. I don't have a narrow definition of religion...

My experience has nothing to do with why I think religion is bad. You don't dispute that religion is based on faith, so I'm not sure why you're attacking my definition of it. It's commonly understood and accepted. Religion is not complex or deep. Far from it. It's as shallow as it gets. It's just also massively privileged as a system of thought.

I don't think I am in the extreme. Most religious people don't follow their own faith, much less believe it, and for good reason. They'll allow themselves to believe the vaguest notions about the supernatural. One that conforms to their values. Makes it easier to survive in reality.

Where I'm in the minority is being open and honest about faith being bad. But that's changing quickly as well.

When you say you're not religious, but you "believe in faith", I don't know what that means.

There's a big difference between making tough decisions or taking a risk and faith. The faith you're talking about has nothing to do with religious faith, which is why you aren't religious. Trusting people through experience or yourself is not done without evidence, actually, it's impossible. You are going off of evidence and experience. Religion is nothing like that at all. Religion is an assumption with nothing to back it up. Trust in people or yourself is not.

Religious faith is nothing like the faith you speak of. Such is the confusion of the definition and uses of words. Calling trust faith makes no sense IMHO, though I know that it is often used that way. People put their trust in things based on all evidence available. That's not faith, that's thinking and reasoning.

So you have not defended religious faith in any way. In fact, you have no religious faith yourself, probably for the exact same reasons I don't. If you want to defend religious faith, defend religious faith, not your personal trust in others, which is neither here nor there.

[cbayer]

45. How can you say that you don't have a narrow definition and that it is as shallow as it gets

all in one breath. Do you not see the massive contradiction in that or is you use of intellectual dishonesty coming into play. Certainly this must cause you some tremendous cognitive dissonance that would require some substantial pretzel logic.

You are right, the faith I am talking about is not religious faith, but it is faith in something else. Faith is about trust and those that have faith in a god are no more or less genuine. They believe in something based on their own experience. It's not just about trust, but goes a step further.

It is not my aim to defend religious faith, though I do support the religiously faithful. I see them as an important and valuable part of the world and recognize that many use their beliefs and faiths to further causes that I am devoted to. I see no reason to attack them or they way they experience the world, but will not hesitate to attack if they use that faith to impinge on the rights of others.

Sorry, MD, but your views on religion are just as strident and objectionable as some fundamentalists. You attack all people of faith and fail to see any nuance. That's harmful not only to them as a group but to the causes that we as democrats support.

I wish you would divert your energy to taking down the real enemies instead of those who are on your side, but I don't anticipate that happening.

[trotsky]

46. Well, I guess the important thing is that you get to scold MD...

while the RCC continues to ruin the lives of women and homosexuals around the planet. At least you've chosen the people YOU think are the enemies, and have your crusade to fight. Good luck fighting liberals, cbayer. I'm going after the conservatives.

[MellowDem]

47. Something can have a broad definition and be shallow...

All religions have foundations based on presuppositions. That's what makes them shallow. When you presuppose, well, there's not much opportunity to go deeper.

Religious faith is not equal to your trust in others. Some people are religious based on their experiences, but their religion doesn't require it. Actually, religion allows you to accept the belief with no evidence at all. Humans being humans still look for evidence, of course, but religion requires none. And of course, the evidence for religion that is presented by some is terrible evidence. And since religion doesn't even require evidence in the first place, it certainly doesn't measure whether evidence is good or bad. It can't.

I don't doubt that people genuinely trust false things. But that doesn't make them any less wrong. Religion encourages trusting false things, even things that don't exist. That's what is bad about it.

You trusting others is not a belief system. If your basis for trusting others was a belief system that presupposed truth with no evidence, like trust all people with green shirts on, they're all automatically trustworthy, then that would be bad, and if more people used your belief system, that would be bad.

I don't see how my opinion is objectionable or strident. You certainly never pointed out how it was dogmatic or rigid.

I'm not attacking religious people, I'm attacking religion, and what it does to people. I see all people as valuable as well, which is why I fight a belief system that causes many people to believe false things and cause them harm.

I'm not Harmon progressive policies. I think clinging to a beliefs system that conservatives in the US have incorporated into their political strategy is harmful, as it makes it hard to rebut their arguments effectively or differentiate yourself. Also, conservatives rely on faith-based thinking to thrive.

[Brettongarcia]

48. i've had similar experiences with religion as MelloDem Etc.

The problem is that Liberal religionists try to assert that sure, Fundamentalists make mistakes. But beyond them is a right, "good," probably spiritual religiosity. The problem with Liberals though is this: there are problems even with "good" religion. And distinguishing it from "bad." The Bible itself often warned us that there are many bad things in religions, presenting themselves as "good."

Take the recent case, cited on DU, of the woman who thought that her good God was commanding her not to send her sick children to the doctor; so that two of her children died.

Here liberal religionists will insist that they themselves could not make any such errors. But how do you know the consequences of your own beliefs? Many liberals believe that being "spiritual" and trying to "love," could surely not go wrong, and could not harm. But as it turns out: even when we think we are being better than fundies, being more "spiritual," the Bible warned that there are "false spirits." While as for "love"? The Bible - and hard experience - taught many of us that even love can go wrong; we can love the wrong things; like love of drugs, or love of a drug lord. Finally "the heart is deceitful above all things.

Consistently, Ms. Bayer's idea seems to be 1) that sure, fundamentalists do many bad things in the name of religion. But like many liberal religionists, 2) she maintains however that there is a "good" side to religion, that we can find, and emphasize. Perhaps this is true in part. But it seems equally true that ... no one can ever be quite sure WHICH parts it is, that are good. The Bible rightly warned that many things which seem to be very good - "spirit," "love," things that come to us looking like the very "angel of light" and goodness - are often bad and deceitful things.

And in fact? It has been my own experience that even many of the very things that are called "good" in liberal religion - even "spirit" and "love" - often turn out to be very bad things indeed.

Finally there are so many bad things not only in fundamentalism, but even "higher," better, "spiritual," liberal religiosity, that many feel that it is time to walk away from ALL of it; from all "religion" altogether.