Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,616
Reaction score
8,500
Age
43
Online
Sticky Post
I will definitely be paying close attention to this. I actually feel that Francis has done his best to bring individuals back to the faith and feel, like stated in the article, that this is a cry from a very vocal minority from the conservative side of the Church. I frankly wish they'd put more effort in stopping the continual burden of the sex abuse scandal than go after a man whose message has been one of acceptance. That's what all faiths truly need right now.

A conservative group of Catholic priests and theologians called for Pope Francis to be declared a heretic because they believed he has softened the Catholic Church's stance on major moral issues.

There were 19 signatories to a letter urging the College of Bishops to denounce the pontiff and even consider stripping him of the papacy if he does not show “true repentance.”

The letter, backed by a Change.org petition, alleged the Pope had “denied truths of the faith” and had not been outspoken enough on key aspects of dogma such as abortion and homosexuality and seems too accepting of other faiths. He was even accused of once using a satanic symbol.

The focal point of the 20-page missive is the Pope’s 2016 document about family life, titled Amoris Laetitia, which has been interpreted by some as suggesting the Pope has softened the church's views on key issues, including whether divorced people can receive communion.

The letter stated: "Pope Francis has protected and promoted homosexually active clerics and clerical apologists for homosexual activity. This indicates that he believes that homosexual activity is not gravely sinful."

It also took issue that the Pope had "failed to speak a word in support of popular campaigns to preserve Catholic countries from abortion and homosexuality, for example, before the referendum to introduce abortion into Ireland in May 2018."
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,033
Reaction score
18,008
Location
The Channel
Online
As you said in another post, you don't have a personal beef. So your issue most be from a standpoint that Francis' papacy conflicts with spiritual teachings you're used to.

And also as you've mentioned, Benedict is no longer Pope. What he envisions no longer matters.
I don't think we are using our language in the same way. As it pertains to theological and moral thought, I think that the writings/words of this pope have the possibility of being interpreted as heretical, and in many instances that is exactly how they are being understood and implemented. It really has nothing to do with what I am personally accustomed. It's a matter of what the Church has believed and taught over the centuries.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about Benedict. I did not mean that he desired a smaller Church and sought to bring that about. I meant that he had something of a prophetic vision of what the Church would be.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
22,402
Reaction score
9,979
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Online
As you said in another post, you don't have a personal beef. So your issue most be from a standpoint that Francis' papacy conflicts with spiritual teachings you're used to.

And also as you've mentioned, Benedict is no longer Pope. What he envisions no longer matters.
Oh I don't know that Benedict's vision no longer matters. I think his opinion carries a lot of weight. Historically, having a living former Pope around making his own comments is very unusual in the Catholic Church. I certainly think it matters greatly to a lot of Catholics.
 

dgrant

Veteran Starter
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
698
Offline
Based on what you guys are saying, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis had opposing viewpoints about the direction the church should head. The former seeking a reformation from within; the latter from without. Is that accurate?

Is Pope Benedict undermining or supporting Pope Francis with his response?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,807
Reaction score
34,507
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
Therein lies the exasperation with this pope. He says it should be read always in continuity. But he also a year earlier seemingly contradicted this. In a letter to Argentine bishops (which was also published on the Vatican website), he praised their guidelines for divorced and remarried Catholics. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.” The problem was of course that the Argentine guidelines appeared to very much break with the tradition of the Church, opening the possibility for couples living in an objectively adulterous state to receive Reconciliation and Eucharist without a commitment to continence. Additionally, Francis promoted and features people like Cardinal Farrell and Cardinal Cupich, both with conspicuous connections to Theodore McCarrick, who most certainly interpret Amoris Laetitia in this way.

What are the faithful to believe and understand?

This state of ambiguity is completely unnecessary. If he had answered the dubia a year earlier there would be no question. Yet here we are three years later. People are able to believe whatever they want to believe and I think that's by design. Some suggest that Francis is at heart a Peronist, a politician who has no trouble contradicting himself for the sake of pleasing the person directly in front of him. We need a pastor, not a politician. We need someone who plainly speaks truth and leads to salvation in Christ. I'm just not seeing it right now. I see confusion and weaponized ambiguity. It's disconcerting.
So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
22,402
Reaction score
9,979
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Online
So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.
Same here. It's an interesting discussion for sure though. Even though I'm not a Catcholic, the Church has had a large impact on my life. My brother and his family are still Catholic are part of a church in Lafayette.

We've been far apart for a long time and I wish we had more opportunities to talk about faith. That's one of the main things I regret in living so far away. We may move back to Lafayette at some point, but probably not for another 4 years or so, after all the kids finish high school.
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,033
Reaction score
18,008
Location
The Channel
Online
So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.
The controversy has nothing to do with cases in which annulment is possible. Remember, annulment is not 'catholic divorce'.

The problem is exactly the interpretation proposed in your link. It violates two fundamental doctrines of faith.

1. that one can continue to live in a state of sin yet be admitted absolution in confession and subsequently Eucharist.

2. That one can be in such a situation as to find it impossible to not sin, thereby justifying the sin itself

The first removes a required condition for reconciliation, which is the sincere intention to sin no more.

The second violates the belief that God's grace is sufficient to enable us to live without sin, thereby removing culpability.

Both are heresy.

John Paul II confirmed what was already assumed in situations such as this. If a person is validly married, they cannot get 'married' again as marriage is indissoluble. Therefore the second union is adulterous. If, due to circumstance such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, the individuals must commit themselves to chastity, which means abstinence, before being admitted to the sacraments.

Note: the article conflated the above with the idea that a child would be abandoned by her mother.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,807
Reaction score
34,507
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
The controversy has nothing to do with cases in which annulment is possible. Remember, annulment is not 'catholic divorce'.

The problem is exactly the interpretation proposed in your link. It violates two fundamental doctrines of faith.

1. that one can continue to live in a state of sin yet be admitted absolution in confession and subsequently Eucharist.

2. That one can be in such a situation as to find it impossible to not sin, thereby justifying the sin itself

The first removes a required condition for reconciliation, which is the sincere intention to sin no more.

The second violates the belief that God's grace is sufficient to enable us to live without sin, thereby removing culpability.

Both are heresy.

John Paul II confirmed what was already assumed in situations such as this. If a person is validly married, they cannot get 'married' again as marriage is indissoluble. Therefore the second union is adulterous. If, due to circumstance such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, the individuals must commit themselves to chastity, which means abstinence, before being admitted to the sacraments.

Note: the article conflated the above with the idea that a child would be abandoned by her mother.
Doesn't that last bit get into the specific issue for some. If, due to circumstance, such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, if the individuals commit to chastity, maybe there would be no option to stay together. i.e. the husband would kick the wife out.

So, is it an all or nothing proposition, or is the harm to the child more important than being chaste in that regard?
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,590
Reaction score
14,135
Age
43
Online
Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.

This is really what all this is about. It's not a question they're even allowed to entertain, but it should be asked. It's maybe the most important question that stands before them, because a lot of their own followers feel that the bible is wrong on homosexuality. But the conversation can't even be had because if you so bring it up, you'll be labeled a heretic. Hell even being nice to homosexuals is cause to be labeled a heretic, as we see here with Francis.

You can't answer a question you're not even willing to ask. That's why all of these conversation get hung up on and focused on teaching against the doctrine. But if the doctrine is wrong to start with, then why does it even matter what you teach? Why do you think most people don't care anymore, it's because they believe that what is being taught is a lie.

But here comes the next line, "It doesn't matter what most people think, they're being faithful to the bible." Uh hu. :cautious:
 
OP
OP
Grandadmiral

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,616
Reaction score
8,500
Age
43
Online
Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.
This is a question I asked earlier that Brennan didn't answer. What if the Church decides that what's been taught has been wrong and has to be looked at differently?

Here's the thing about the Bible and Church doctrine - it's all developed and written by men. Our faith teaches us we have to accept those teachings, even though plenty contradict one another.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,807
Reaction score
34,507
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
Here's my overall thought. And I know this is where Brennan and I don't see eye to eye, and it's not because we're in real disagreement. I just choose to focus elsewhere.

I really don't care about the specifics of Church law. That's for the Priests, Bishops, Vatican to sort out.

I'm not a Catholic scholar. I'm not even a good Catholic at this point, to be honest. I try to be a good person though. What I care about, is how should I treat others? What should or shouldn't I do? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention to my CCD classes.

None of these concerns from the Dubia affect me, at least, not outside of an academic exercise. The overall message I received from the AL was one of charity and welcoming. Essentially being open to people to experience the church, in some level. It was asking questions about how can we better serve. That's all I need to know to be a good member of the church. That we can't let our ideological purity (black and white answers) get in the way of being good people. My job isn't to judge, or prevent someone from getting communion or whatever (now, if you're a Eucharistic minister, it would be good to get guidelines.. but let's be honest, you don't even know who is or isn't Catholic, let alone who's in grave sin.. it's somewhat of an honor system). My job is to do good works, pray, go to mass (where I'm deficient lately), volunteer, give charity, give patience, and basically do the right thing.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,807
Reaction score
34,507
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
This is a question I asked earlier that Brennan didn't answer. What if the Church decides that what's been taught has been wrong and has to be looked at differently?

Here's the thing about the Bible and Church doctrine - it's all developed and written by men. Our faith teaches us we have to accept those teachings, even though plenty contradict one another.
The Church has somewhat evolved their take on suicide, as more information about mental health has become available.
 
OP
OP
Grandadmiral

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,616
Reaction score
8,500
Age
43
Online
The Church has somewhat evolved their take on suicide, as more information about mental health has become available.
Yep. It was very hard on families who couldn't have a funeral Mass for their loved ones because of that archaic teaching.
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,033
Reaction score
18,008
Location
The Channel
Online
Doesn't that last bit get into the specific issue for some. If, due to circumstance, such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, if the individuals commit to chastity, maybe there would be no option to stay together. i.e. the husband would kick the wife out.

So, is it an all or nothing proposition, or is the harm to the child more important than being chaste in that regard?
If I'm understanding your hypothetical correctly we have the following...

A man, who is not the husband of a woman, will kick her out of his/her home for not having sex with him?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,807
Reaction score
34,507
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
If I'm understanding your hypothetical correctly we have the following...

A man, who is not the husband of a woman, will kick her out of his/her home for not having sex with him?
Ok, if that's the small part you want to focus on.....I'm sure quite a few would.

And you're saying "not the husband" on a technical catholic level, right? They could be a civil marriage, they could be bf/gf. Right? I mean, the argument is that they have kids together and are adulterers, so stop being adulterers, and be chaste.

Am I missing the hypothetical scenario? I mean, it's your scenario. Help me understand.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Grandadmiral

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,616
Reaction score
8,500
Age
43
Online
Ok, if that's the small part you want to focus on.....I'm sure quite a few would.

And you're saying "not the husband" on a technical catholic level. They could be a civil marriage, they could be bf/gf. Right? I mean, the argument is that they have kids together and are adulterers, so stop being adulterers, and be chaste.

Am I missing the hypothetical scenario? I mean, it's your scenario. Help me understand.
Let's take it outside of the hypothetical then and go to the actual. I married my daughter's mother, but I was not married in the Church, but at a JP. The church never recognized my marriage and restricted me in many facets of church life (Eucharistic ministry, lecturers, etc.). I disagree, but accepted that.

I get a divorce. Guess what? I'm still restricted and told I have to petition the diocesan tribunal for a marriage that the Church would not recognize as valid.

"You don't have to get a full annulment, but you have to go through the process."

What the hell? The Church has already said it wasn't valid. Shouldn't confession be enough?
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,763
Reaction score
11,595
Location
Xibalba
Online
Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.
The fundamental problem with such a question is the very thought that the Bible and/or the doctrine could be wrong. No matter your religion, the basis for your religion can't be wrong. It must be right. After all, it is the word of God. Otherwise, if they are wrong about something as etched in stone as homosexuality and adultery are in the Bible, then what else could they be wrong about?

This is specially true for things that cannot be apologized for through "historical context" or by simply declaring the problematic passage a parable (like the flood, for example). There is no other context, there is no light you can't shine on the Bible's view of homosexuality other than a grave sin against God.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom